Allahabad HC Grants Bail To Dowry Death Accused In Jail For Over 11 Years
What Section 156(3) CrPC Actually Is
Nature: A pre-cognizance power enabling a Magistrate to order the police to register an FIR and investigate.
Timing: Invoked before the Magistrate takes cognizance under §190; once cognizance is taken and the case is posted for inquiry, the route is §202 (limited, post-cognizance investigation), not §156(3).
Leading authority: Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252 — draws the pre/post-cognizance line.
Why “Vigilant” Exercise Is Required (Madras HC approach)
Madras High Court has repeatedly stressed that §156(3) is not a rubber stamp. Orders must reflect application of mind and adherence to statutory pre-conditions, or they are liable to be set aside in revision/§482 CrPC. In essence, the Court expects the Magistrate to:
Check pre-conditions
Complainant must first approach the police under §154(1) (SHO) and, if rebuffed, §154(3) (SP/DCP).
The efforts and responses must be shown (representations, CSR, endorsement, etc.).
Cases:
Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 628 (scope of §156(3)).
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 (proper remedies when police refuse FIR).
Insist on a sworn affidavit with material particulars
Mandatory affidavit to curb misuse; falsehood invites prosecution for perjury.
Case: Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287.
Record brief reasons showing application of mind
A mechanical “Allowed” or “Forwarded for FIR” is insufficient. Order should show why police investigation (not a mere §200/202 inquiry) is necessary: e.g., need for custodial interrogation, collection of electronic/forensic evidence, recovery, tracing co-accused, etc.
Cases:
Devarapalli (supra);
Priyanka Srivastava (supra) (speaks to judicial vigilance).
Filter out purely civil/commercial disputes
If the grievance is a contract/financial dispute without clear criminal elements (cheating, forgery, breach of trust with requisite mens rea), §156(3) should not be used to criminalise civil wrongs.
Cases:
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 (illustrative categories for quash);
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636;
M/s Indian Oil Corpn. v. NEPC India Ltd., (2006) 6 SCC 736.
Verify jurisdiction, limitation, and statutory bars
Territorial jurisdiction, limitation (where applicable), and bars like §197 CrPC/§19 PC Act (public servants) must be considered before directing registration.
Cases:
Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 (sanction must be considered even at §156(3) stage);
Manju Surana v. Sunil Arora, (2018) 5 SCC 557 (reiterates sanction logic).
Avoid procedural shortcuts after cognizance
Once the Magistrate takes cognizance on a complaint under §200, he cannot casually revert to §156(3). The proper course is §202 (limited investigation) if needed.
Case: M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728.
Madras HC’s through-line: Orders that lack an affidavit, skip §154(1)/(3), or are non-speaking (no reasons) are routinely interfered with. The Court also frowns upon using §156(3) to arm-twist in property/partnership-money disputes, or to bypass sanction requirements against officials.
Practical Checklist the Magistrate Is Expected to Apply (and counsel should address)
A. Maintainability & Preconditions
Proof of approach under §154(1) and §154(3) annexed.
Affidavit verifying facts, sources, and annexures (per Priyanka Srivastava).
Clear criminal ingredients pleaded (act, intent, loss).
Jurisdiction and limitation explained.
B. Why Police Investigation Is Necessary
Need for forensics/digital retrieval, CCTV, banking trails, call data, recoveries, identification.
Risk of tampering/absconding, or need for custodial interrogation.
Why a §200 inquiry or §202 limited probe is inadequate.
C. Statutory Bars
If against a public servant, address sanction (prima facie).
Any special enactment bars or prior approvals?
D. Reasoned Order (Model skeleton the Madras HC expects)
Short recital → compliance with §154(1)/(3) + affidavit → assessment that prima facie cognizable offence is disclosed → why police investigation is warranted → direction under §156(3) with a time-bound report to the Magistrate.
Typical Errors That Lead to Interference by the High Court
Mechanical/one-line orders (“Register and investigate”) with no reasons.
No affidavit; or an affidavit lacking specifics. (Priyanka Srivastava).
Bypassing §154(1)/(3) with no explanation.
Civil flavour disputes dressed up as criminal allegations. (Bhajan Lal line).
Ignoring sanction where public servants are involved. (Anil Kumar v. Aiyappa).
Using §156(3) after cognizance instead of §202. (M. Subramaniam).
How Madras HC Typically Disposes §156(3) Challenges
Sets aside non-speaking §156(3) orders; remits with directions to reconsider after ensuring affidavit + §154(1)/(3) compliance and speaking reasons.
Converts the route to §200/202 (private complaint route) in borderline/limited-fact situations.
Quashes proceedings where allegations are purely civil or hit by sanction bars.
Issues guidance to Magistrates to scrutinize materials (not prove the case) but ensure the request is not an abuse.
Key Case Law—One-Line Takeaways (use these in pleadings)
Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (1976) 3 SCC 252 — §156(3) = pre-cognizance; §202 = post-cognizance.
Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P., (2001) 2 SCC 628 — Magistrate can order FIR/Investigation when cognizable offence is disclosed.
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 — Proper remedy for refusal to register FIR; Magistrate’s supervisory powers.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 — Illustrative quash categories; prevents criminalisation of civil disputes.
G. Sagar Suri v. State of U.P., (2000) 2 SCC 636; Indian Oil v. NEPC, (2006) 6 SCC 736 — Courts should thwart use of criminal process for civil/commercial scores.
Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705 — Sanction consideration applies even at §156(3) stage for public servants.
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., (2015) 6 SCC 287 — Affidavit mandatory; prior recourse to §154(1)/(3); Magistrates must be vigilant.
Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1 — Police duty to register FIR on cognizable offence; preliminary inquiry only in limited classes.
M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728 — Don’t switch to §156(3) after taking cognizance; use §202 if needed.
These Supreme Court rulings are binding and form the backbone of how the Madras High Court frames “vigilant exercise” under §156(3).
Practitioner Tips (Tamil Nadu/Madras HC)
For Applicants: Annex §154(1)/(3) papers; file a detailed affidavit; explain why police investigation is indispensable; address sanction upfront if any public functionary is named.
For Respondents/Accused: Attack maintainability (no §154(1)/(3), no affidavit), non-speaking order, civil flavour, sanction bar; rely on Bhajan Lal, Priyanka Srivastava, Anil Kumar, M. Subramaniam.
For Magistrates: Keep a two-page speaking order template; tick through the checklist; give time-bound direction to file a status/final report to ensure oversight without micromanaging investigation.
Bottom line
The Madras High Court expects strict, reasoned, and documented use of §156(3) CrPC—vigilance is the rule, not the exception. Orders must show why police investigation is necessary, that statutory pre-steps were taken, and that the request is not a civil dispute in disguise or barred by law. Failure on these counts invites interference.
RELATED Blog
0 comments