Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal against the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court's order directing registration of an FIR based on a complaint. The appellants, who were not parties to the original petition, challenged the High Court's direction. The Court held that the remedy for non-registration of FIR lies before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, not by way of a writ petition under Article 226. The Court relied on Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, which established that the Magistrate has wide powers to direct registration of FIR and ensure proper investigation. The Court set aside the High Court's direction but clarified that the complainant could approach the police or the Magistrate. The Court also noted that a civil dispute should not be given the colour of a criminal offence, but pendency of civil proceedings does not bar registration of FIR if a criminal offence is disclosed. The appeal was allowed, and the stay on investigation was lifted subject to the complainant's liberty to approach the Magistrate.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC - The High Court cannot direct registration of FIR and investigation under Article 226 when the aggrieved person has an alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC - Held that the complainant must approach the Magistrate concerned, who can direct registration of FIR and ensure proper investigation (Paras 5-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Investigation - Power of Magistrate - The Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC has wide powers including ordering registration of FIR, directing proper investigation, monitoring investigation, and recommending change of investigating officer - Held that Section 156(3) is wide enough to include all incidental powers necessary for ensuring proper investigation (Paras 5-6). C) Criminal Law - Civil and Criminal Remedies - Distinction - A civil dispute should not be given the colour of a criminal offence, but mere pendency of civil proceedings is not a ground to refuse registration of FIR if a criminal offence is disclosed - Held that the police may register FIR if satisfied that a criminal offence is made out, and the complainant may approach the Magistrate if necessary (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court could direct registration of FIR and investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution when the remedy lies before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. The direction of the High Court for registration of FIR and investigation is set aside. The first respondent may file documents with police and police may register FIR if satisfied. First respondent may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. Appellants may take steps to protect their interest. No opinion on merits of complaint.
Law Points
- Remedy for non-registration of FIR is under Section 156(3) CrPC before Magistrate
- not under Article 226 before High Court
- Civil dispute should not be given colour of criminal offence
- Pendency of civil proceedings not a bar to register FIR if criminal offence made out
