FIR Lodged By Concealing The Rejection Of An Application Under Section 156(3) Of The CrPC Cannot Be Allowed To...
FIR lodged by concealing the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot be allowed to be acted upon or relied upon, with relevant case laws and analysis,
🔎 Context
Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers the magistrate to order police investigation if an application or complaint is made showing sufficient grounds. However, if the magistrate rejects such an application, and thereafter, an FIR is lodged concealing this rejection, such an FIR is considered not maintainable and cannot be allowed to proceed.
⚖️ Legal Principle
Mandatory Disclosure: When an FIR or complaint is filed after a magistrate rejects an application under Section 156(3), the fact of rejection must be disclosed.
Filing FIR After Rejection: Filing an FIR while concealing the rejection misleads the investigating agency and the court.
Non-Establishment of Jurisdiction: The police cannot exercise jurisdiction based on such FIRs, as it violates procedural safeguards.
Duty of Candor: The complainant must act honestly and not misrepresent facts.
🧑⚖️ Judicial Position
Courts have held that FIRs lodged by suppressing the rejection of Section 156(3) applications are liable to be quashed or set aside to prevent misuse of the criminal process.
📚 Key Case Laws
1. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604
While laying down guidelines to prevent misuse of criminal law, the Supreme Court held that police cannot register FIRs in cases where the magistrate’s rejection under Section 156(3) is concealed.
Such FIRs amount to abuse of process of law.
2. Rajiv Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2016) 8 SCC 161
The Court quashed the FIR filed by concealing that the magistrate had already rejected the complaint under Section 156(3).
The Court emphasized that full disclosure is essential to maintain the integrity of criminal procedure.
3. Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur, (2017) 4 SCC 481
Held that filing an FIR in misrepresentation of facts—like concealing rejection under Section 156(3)—renders the FIR liable to be quashed.
Reiterated the importance of fair play and due process.
4. M.M. Gounder v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1965 SC 1803
Supreme Court underscored that where jurisdictional facts are missing or concealed, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
5. Kerala High Court in Joseph v. State of Kerala (2014)
The Court held FIR lodged by suppressing the magistrate’s rejection under Section 156(3) was not maintainable and quashed it.
⚖️ Summary of Legal Position
Aspect | Explanation |
---|---|
Section 156(3) CrPC | Magistrate’s order for police investigation upon application. |
Concealment of Rejection | Hiding magistrate’s rejection while lodging FIR is unlawful. |
Effect on FIR | FIR is liable to be quashed or struck down as abuse of process. |
Judicial Ruling | FIR without disclosure of rejection is not maintainable. |
📌 Practical Implications
Complainants must disclose magistrate’s rejection while lodging FIR.
Police and courts should verify if an application was rejected before proceeding.
Courts can quash FIRs lodged by concealment to prevent harassment or misuse.
This principle protects the accused from vexatious or frivolous FIRs.
✍️ Conclusion
An FIR lodged by concealing the magistrate’s rejection of an application under Section 156(3) CrPC undermines the criminal justice system's fairness. The courts have firmly held that such FIRs are liable to be quashed to uphold the rule of law and prevent abuse of criminal process.
0 comments