Separate And Independent Application U/S. 154(3) CrPC Is Required After Refusal By SHO To Register FIR :...
Separate and Independent Application U/S 154(3) CrPC is Required After Refusal by SHO to Register FIR
1. Understanding Section 154 and 154(3) of the CrPC
Section 154 CrPC mandates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence must be reduced to writing by the police.
The police officer receiving the information must register a First Information Report (FIR).
However, if the police officer refuses to register an FIR or delays the registration, the aggrieved person has a remedy under Section 154(3) CrPC.
2. What Does Section 154(3) CrPC Say?
Section 154(3) provides that when the officer in charge of a police station refuses to register an FIR or delays registration, the person giving the information can make a written complaint to the Magistrate.
The Magistrate is then empowered to direct the police to register the FIR or take appropriate action.
3. Need for a Separate and Independent Application to the Magistrate
When the SHO refuses to register an FIR, the complainant cannot assume that the refusal will automatically lead to Magistrate’s intervention.
The complainant must file a separate and independent written complaint under Section 154(3) CrPC before the Magistrate.
This application is a distinct legal remedy, separate from the initial complaint to the police.
It ensures that the Magistrate exercises judicial oversight on the refusal by the police and can direct registration if deemed necessary.
4. Why is This Important?
It provides a check on police discretion in registering FIRs.
Prevents arbitrary or illegal refusal by police.
Ensures the Magistrate’s supervisory role in criminal justice.
Helps maintain accountability and transparency.
5. Case Laws Establishing This Principle
A. Lalita Kumari vs Govt. of UP (2014) 2 SCC 1
The Supreme Court held that registration of FIR is mandatory if information discloses a cognizable offence.
Where police refuse to register FIR, complainant can approach the Magistrate under Section 154(3) CrPC.
The Court underscored the need for judicial oversight through Magistrate’s intervention.
B. State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal (1992) Supp (1) SCC 335
Reiterated that refusal to register FIR can be challenged through Magistrate’s intervention.
Highlighted the importance of proper procedure under Section 154(3) CrPC.
C. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 565
Emphasized that Magistrate’s power under Section 154(3) is judicial and independent.
The complaint to Magistrate must be in writing and distinct from the initial complaint.
D. State of Punjab vs Baldev Singh (1999) 5 SCC 214
Clarified that the complainant’s remedy against police refusal lies in filing an independent application under Section 154(3).
This is a statutory right and protects the complainant’s interests.
E. Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education vs Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Pandya (2005) 1 SCC 544
Affirmed that refusal by police is not absolute and can be corrected by Magistrate’s order after an application under Section 154(3).
6. Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Section 154 CrPC | Police must register FIR upon receiving info. |
| Refusal or Delay by SHO | Police cannot refuse arbitrarily; complainant has remedy. |
| Section 154(3) CrPC | Separate written complaint to Magistrate required. |
| Magistrate’s Role | Judicial oversight; can direct registration. |
| Legal Remedy | Independent application; not automatic or implicit. |
| Key Case Laws | Lalita Kumari, Bhajan Lal, Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia |
7. Conclusion
When the police refuse to register an FIR, the complainant must file a separate and independent application under Section 154(3) CrPC before the Magistrate.
This procedure is a crucial safeguard against police inaction or abuse of power.
The Magistrate, upon receiving the complaint, exercises judicial discretion and can direct the police to register the FIR, ensuring justice is not denied at the initial stage.
Courts have consistently emphasized this step as a necessary and statutory remedy, and failure to do so may leave the complainant without adequate recourse.
RELATED Blog
0 comments