https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775563 The SC upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's order directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, finding no lack of jurisdiction or failure to apply mind. The Court held that the informant must first approach police authorities before filing under Section 156(3), but the Magistrate's satisfaction that a cognizable offence was disclosed was sufficient. The HC rightly refused to quash the FIR and related order since investigations were complete and chargesheets filed. The dispute was not purely civil, given prior FIRs on the same MoU breach. The subsequent FIR was not barred as a successive FIR because the allegations and parties differed from the earlier FIR. The SC declined to interfere with the HC's discretionary refusal to quash, dismissing the petitions and allowing proceedings to continue. en-us Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Jul 2025 08:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775563 The SC upheld the Metropolitan Magistrate's order directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, finding no lack of jurisdiction or failure to apply mind. The Court held that the informant must first approach police authorities before filing under Section 156(3), but the Magistrate's satisfaction that a cognizable offence was disclosed was sufficient. The HC rightly refused to quash the FIR and related order since investigations were complete and chargesheets filed. The dispute was not purely civil, given prior FIRs on the same MoU breach. The subsequent FIR was not barred as a successive FIR because the allegations and parties differed from the earlier FIR. The SC declined to interfere with the HC's discretionary refusal to quash, dismissing the petitions and allowing proceedings to continue. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=775563