No Need To Examine Complainant Before Ordering Investigation Under Section 156(3) CrPC : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has repeated that there is no necessity of inspecting the complainant on pledge under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC) before a Judicial Magistrate orders police examination under Section 156(3) CrPC. Holding in this way, the Supreme Court put away a request passed by the Bombay high court which had allowed expectant abandon the ground that request for judge to coordinate enrolment of FIR under Sec 156(3) CrPC was given without looking at the complainant on promise as under Section 200 CrPC. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's view that strategy under Section 200 CrPC must be followed before Section 156(3) request was wrong in law. The Top Court alluded to a line of points of reference which held that Section 156(3) CrPC is a pre-comprehension stage. A division seat containing Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah conveyed the decision in the cases M/s Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd versus State of Maharashtra and another and associated cases.
The appeals were filed against orders passed by the Bombay High Court on December 18, 2017, allowing expectant bail to some denounced on the ground that the Magistrate requested the enrollment of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC without inspecting the complainant on vow under Section 200 CrPC. "The record shows that, the protest documented by first source was upheld with his sworn statement dated 06.02.2016 and the command of law as examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for example the said complainant has not been analyzed on promise by the concerned Magistrate. The essential principle of law as examined under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. has not been followed, it raises a significant uncertainty about the legitimacy of issuance of the said Order passed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. by the concerned Magistrate", the request passed by Justice AS Gadkari of High Court had noticed. The Supreme Court toppled the above perspective on the Bombay High Court as in opposition to settled standards.
"Any Judicial Magistrate, prior to taking insight of the offense, can arrange examination under Section 156(3) of the Code. On the off chance that he does as such, he isn't to inspect the complainant on pledge since he was not taking awareness of any offense in that", the Court cited from the judgment wrote by Justice KT Thomas in Suresh Chand Jain v. Province of MP (2001) 2 SCC 628. The guideline articulated in the above choice has been continued in a few choices like Dilawar Singh v. Province of Delhi (2007) 12 SCC 641, Tilak Nagar Industries Limited v. Province of Andhra Pradesh (2011) 15 SCC 571, Anju Chaudhary v. Province of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 6 SCC 384 and so on "The High Court has clearly not been informed about the above decisions for, in case it was, it would not have continued to figure a rule which is in opposition to the line of point of reference of this Court", the Court noticed.