🏛️ Supreme Court: Magistrate Can Order FIR Registration U/S 156(3) CrPC Even Without Prior Remedy Under Section 154(3)
Published: July 27, 2025 | Source: Supreme Court of India
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has held that a Magistrate can direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, even if the informant has not exhausted the remedies available under Section 154(3) of the Code.
The verdict came in the case of Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi), where the Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti dismissed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) challenging the validity of the Metropolitan Magistrate’s order directing registration of an FIR.
⚖️ Key Highlights of the Judgment
- Magistrate’s Power Not Dependent on Section 154(3) Compliance:
The Court ruled that even if the complainant has not approached the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), a Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) is not without jurisdiction. - Mere Procedural Irregularity:
Failure to exhaust Section 154 remedies is a procedural irregularity, not a fatal error. Hence, the FIR ordered by the Magistrate remains valid. - Cognizable Offence Disclosure is Key:
If the information discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate has the authority to order FIR registration, regardless of whether previous remedies were used.
📌 Court’s Observation
“The Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application under Section 156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed remedies under Section 154(3). However, ignoring this remedy is only a procedural irregularity.”
The Court further emphasized that once the Magistrate has applied judicial mind and found that the allegations reveal a cognizable offence, the FIR registration order cannot be termed without jurisdiction.
📚 Background of the Case
- Complainant: M/s Sunair Hotels Ltd.
- Accused: VLS Finance Ltd. and its directors/officers
- Allegation: Failure to fulfill financial consultancy promises; fraudulent conduct
- Previous Proceedings:
- SHL initiated arbitration.
- FIR was registered against VLS under Sections 406, 409, 420, 424, 120-B IPC.
- VLS filed for quashing of the FIR; the High Court dismissed their plea.
- SLP was filed in the Supreme Court.
🔍 Key Legal Findings
- The application under Section 156(3) didn’t show prior effort under Section 154(1) or 154(3) CrPC.
- Yet, the Magistrate had:
- Heard counsel
- Considered legal precedents
- Found prima facie evidence of cognizable offence
- Hence, the Supreme Court found no procedural illegality or jurisdictional error.
🚫 No Bar on Second Complaint
While the Court reiterated that two FIRs on the same facts are not permissible, it clarified:
“If parties or allegations are different, a second complaint may not be barred.”
In this case, since the parties and offences varied, the Bench did not interfere with the proceedings.
🧾 Case Information
- Case Title: Anurag Bhatnagar & Anr. v. State (NCT of Delhi)
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 895
- Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti
- Date of Judgment: July 2025
👩⚖️ Appearances
- Petitioners: Sr. Adv. Ranjit Kumar, Shoeb Alam, Bharat Chugh, and team
- Respondents: Sr. Adv. Jayant Bhushan, Sidhartha Dave, Jatin S Sethi, Akbar Siddique, and others
Legal Takeaway
This judgment reinforces the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) CrPC and provides clarity on the procedural scope of FIR registration, ensuring that justice is not denied merely due to procedural lapses.
