Supreme Court Clarifies Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC in Rape Cases: Kailash Vijayvargiya vs. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri (2023)

Date of the Judgment: May 04, 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 417
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a Magistrate, when considering a complaint under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, verify the truth and veracity of the allegations, especially in cases involving serious offenses like rape? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a criminal appeal, clarifying the extent of a Magistrate’s powers at this preliminary stage. This judgment is significant for understanding the balance between ensuring justice for victims and protecting individuals from false accusations. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case revolves around a complaint filed by Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri, alleging that she was raped by Kailash Vijayvargiya, Pradeep Joshi, and Jishnu Basu on November 29, 2018, at the residence of Kailash Vijayvargiya. The complainant, a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), claimed that the incident occurred when she was invited to discuss a previous case she had filed against another party member, Amalendu Chattopadhyay. She alleged that the accused pressured her to withdraw the case against Chattopadhyay, and upon her refusal, they committed the alleged rape. She further claimed that after the incident, she was threatened with dire consequences, including the murder of her son if she took any legal action against them.

The complainant stated that she had tried to file a complaint with the local police but was turned away. She then approached higher police authorities, who also failed to take action. Consequently, she filed an application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Alipore, seeking a direction to the police to register an FIR and investigate the matter.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Alipore, dismissed the complainant’s application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC on November 12, 2020, citing a delay of two years in reporting the alleged rape incident and inconsistencies in her statements. The CJM also noted that despite filing several other complaints against the accused, the complainant had not mentioned the alleged rape until October 2020. Aggrieved by this decision, the complainant filed a revision application before the High Court of Calcutta.

The High Court allowed the revision application on October 1, 2021, quashing the CJM’s order. The High Court held that the CJM had erred by verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations at the stage of Section 156(3), which is not permissible according to the Supreme Court’s decision in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1. The High Court stated that the Magistrate’s role at this stage is limited to determining whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offense, not to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the truthfulness of the allegations. The High Court remanded the matter back to the CJM for reconsideration.

Legal Framework

The primary legal provision in question is Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which states:

“Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”

This section empowers a Magistrate to order an investigation by the police into a cognizable offense. The Supreme Court has been tasked with clarifying the scope of this power, particularly on whether the Magistrate can assess the truthfulness of the allegations at this stage. The court also considered Section 154 of the CrPC, which deals with the procedure for registering a First Information Report (FIR) based on information about a cognizable offense. Additionally, the court referred to Section 190 of the CrPC, which empowers Magistrates to take cognizance of offenses, and Section 202 of the CrPC, which allows for the postponement of the issue of process and inquiry into the case.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in setting aside the CJM’s order, which had dismissed the application under Section 156(3) after verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations. They contended that the CJM was justified in doing so, especially given the two-year delay in reporting the alleged rape and the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements.
• The appellants claimed that the High Court wrongly relied on Lalita Kumari (supra), which pertains to the powers of the police to register an FIR, and not to the powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3). They argued that the Magistrate has the power to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations, citing Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287, Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668, Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705, Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439, and Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P. & another (Criminal Appeal No. 52/2022).
• The appellants also pointed out that the High Court had taken a contrary view to a co-ordinate bench in Mukul Roy v. The State of West Bengal, 2018 SCC Online Cal. 4861, which had followed Priyanka Srivastava (supra).
• They submitted that the complainant’s conduct, including sending emails and messages to one of the appellants after the alleged incident, and her failure to mention the rape in earlier complaints, casts serious doubt on the truthfulness of her allegations.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the High Court was correct in setting aside the CJM’s order. They contended that at the stage of Section 156(3), neither the police nor the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to verify the truth and veracity of the allegations.
• The respondents relied on Lalita Kumari (supra), asserting that the Magistrate’s role at this stage is limited to determining whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offense. They argued that the police’s failure to register an FIR necessitates the Magistrate’s intervention under Section 156(3).
• They further argued that the decision in Priyanka Srivastava (supra) should be read harmoniously with Lalita Kumari (supra), and that it does not authorize the Magistrate to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of Section 156(3).
• The respondents pointed out that the Criminal Amendment Act (13 of 2013) made it mandatory to register an FIR in cases of cognizable offenses, especially those against women.
• They also argued that the delay in lodging the complaint should not be a ground for dismissing it, especially considering the threats and harassment faced by the complainant. They cited Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay v. L.R. Melwani, AIR 1970 SC 962, to support their argument that delay is not a sufficient ground for dismissal.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue for consideration:

1. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CJM was justified in verifying the truth and veracity of the allegations at the stage of deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and whether at that stage the Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind or not?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court:

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 – Discussed the mandatory nature of registering an FIR when a cognizable offense is disclosed.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2015) 6 SCC 287 – Discussed the need for Magistrates to apply their minds judiciously when directing the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat (2008) 5 SCC 668 – Discussed the Magistrate’s power to verify allegations.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa (2013) 10 SCC 705 – Discussed the Magistrate’s power to verify allegations.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Ramdev Food Products Private Limited v. State of Gujarat (2015) 6 SCC 439 – Discussed the distinction between the Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) and Section 202 CrPC.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Suresh Kankra v. State of U.P. & another (Criminal Appeal No. 52/2022) – Discussed the Magistrate’s power to verify allegations.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Mukul Roy v. The State of West Bengal, 2018 SCC Online Cal. 4861 – Discussed the Magistrate’s power to verify allegations.
  Court: Calcutta High Court
• Assistant Collector of Customs, Bombay v. L.R. Melwani, AIR 1970 SC 962 – Discussed the effect of delay in filing a complaint.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Abhinandan Jha v. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 – Discussed the powers of the Magistrate in relation to Police investigation.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others , 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 – Highlighted the cases in which the power to quash an FIR can be exercised.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 5 SCC 435 – Discussed the Magistrate’s power to verify allegations.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Mohd. Yusuf v. Afaq Jahan (Smt) and another, (2006) 1 SCC 627 – Discussed the scope of power of the Magistrate to direct an FIR under Section 156(3).
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Anju Chaudhary v. State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384 – Discussed the limited power of the Magistrate under Section 156(3).
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• HDFC Securities Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra , (2017) 1 SCC 640 – Interpreted the words “may take cognizance” and Section 156(3).
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Chandra Deo Singh v. Prokash Chandra Bose alias Chabi Bose and Another , AIR 1963 SC 1430 – Referred to the objective of Section 202.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Jasraj Inder Singh v. Hemraj Multanchand, (1977) 2 SCC 155 – Summarized the procedure on the quest for truth and justice.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Gopal Das Sindhi and Others v. State of Assam and Another, AIR 1961 SC 986 – Discussed the Magistrate’s discretion in taking cognizance.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Suresh Chand Jain v. State of M.P. and another, (2001) 2 SCC 628 – Distinguished between the power of the police to investigate under Section 156 and the direction of the Magistrate for investigation under Section 156(3).
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Mona Panwar v. High Court of Judicature of Allahabad through its Registrar and Others, (2011) 3 SCC 496 – Held that when a complaint is presented before a Magistrate, he has two options.
  Court: Supreme Court of India
• Srinivas Gundluri and others v. SEPCO Electric Power Construction Corporation, (2010) 8 SCC 206 – Discussed the Magistrate’s power to verify allegations.
  Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal Provisions:

• Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Empowers a Magistrate to order police investigation.
• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Deals with the procedure for registering a First Information Report (FIR).
• Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Empowers Magistrates to take cognizance of offenses.
• Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Allows for the postponement of the issue of process and inquiry into the case.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized the need to balance the rights of victims to seek justice with the protection of individuals from false accusations. The Court reiterated that while the Magistrate must apply a judicial mind, they cannot conduct a mini-trial or delve into the merits of the allegations at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court also highlighted the importance of ensuring that the process of law is not abused by litigants with malicious intent. The Court was also concerned about the contradictory statements made by the complainant.

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on interpreting the existing legal framework, particularly Sections 156(3), 154, 190, and 202 of the CrPC, and harmonizing the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra) and Priyanka Srivastava (supra). The Court also took into consideration the facts of the case, including the delay in filing the complaint and the inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements, but emphasized that these should be examined by the Magistrate in the correct stage of the proceedings and not at the stage of 156(3).

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court’s decision to remand the matter, clarified the scope of a Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Court held that while the Magistrate must apply a judicial mind, they cannot conduct a mini-trial or delve into the merits of the allegations at this stage. The Magistrate’s primary role is to determine whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offense. The Court emphasized that the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra) apply to both the police and the Magistrate at the stage of Section 156(3), meaning neither has the jurisdiction to verify the truth and veracity of allegations at the stage of registering an FIR.

The Court also addressed the issue of delay, stating that while delay is not always fatal, it is a factor that the Magistrate can consider. The Court noted that the Magistrate can direct a preliminary inquiry by the police in terms of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra). The Court also observed that the Magistrate cannot dismiss a complaint merely because he finds the resort to Section 156(3) not advisable but must proceed to the stage of Section 200/202 Cr.P.C. and take an appropriate decision under Section 203 or 204 Cr.P.C.

The Court set aside the subsequent order passed by the Magistrate on remand, which had directed the registration ofan FIR, and remanded the matter back to the learned Magistrate for fresh consideration in accordance with the law laid down in the judgment.

Key Quotes from the Judgment:

• “At the stage of deciding the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the learned Magistrate is not required to conduct a mini trial.”
• “The Magistrate has to apply his mind and in a case where the complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate can direct the police to register the FIR and investigate the case.”
• “The principles laid down in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) shall be applicable to the Magistrate also while exercising the powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.”
• “The Magistrate can direct a preliminary inquiry by the police in terms of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra).”

Final Order

The Supreme Court disposed of the appeals, remanding the matter back to the learned Magistrate. The Court set aside the subsequent order passed by the Magistrate on remand, which had directed the registration of an FIR, and directed the learned Magistrate to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law laid down in the judgment. The Court clarified that the Magistrate must apply a judicial mind but cannot conduct a mini-trial or delve into the merits of the allegations at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC. The Court also reiterated that the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra) apply to both the police and the Magistrate at the stage of Section 156(3).

Implications

This judgment clarifies the scope of a Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like rape. The Supreme Court has emphasized that while a Magistrate must apply a judicial mind, they cannot conduct a mini-trial or delve into the merits of the allegations at this stage. This judgment ensures that the process of law is not abused by litigants with malicious intent while also ensuring that victims of serious offenses have access to justice. The judgment also reinforces the principle that the police and the Magistrate should not verify the truth and veracity of allegations at the stage of registering an FIR, which is consistent with the principles laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra).

Impact on Legal Practice:

• Magistrates must be cautious not to conduct a mini-trial at the stage of Section 156(3) CrPC.
• The principles of Lalita Kumari (supra) apply to Magistrates while exercising powers under Section 156(3) CrPC.
• Magistrates can order a preliminary inquiry by the police in terms of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra).
• Delay in filing a complaint should not be the sole ground for dismissal, but it can be a factor considered by the Magistrate.
• This judgment will be a guiding precedent for all Magistrates while dealing with applications under Section 156(3) CrPC.