Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay considered a Criminal Application arising from an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Girgaon, in a private complaint alleging offences punishable under Sections 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The applicants, who were the proposed accused in the complaint, challenged an order dated 15 December 2021 by which the learned Magistrate directed the complainant to comply with Section 154(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Respondent No.1 was the complainant and respondent No.2 was the State of Maharashtra. The complaint sought both issuance of process against the applicants and a direction to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. The Magistrate, during pendency, passed the impugned order without any earlier adverse order against the applicants. The applicants contended that the Magistrate had no inherent power to direct compliance with legal requirements to cure a lacuna in the complaint, that such a direction caused prejudice and would damage their reputation if an FIR was ultimately registered, and that the order effectively reviewed an earlier order contrary to the ratio in Bideshwari Prasad Singh v. Kali Singh. They also relied on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P., which mandates prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) before invoking Section 156(3). The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the applicants, being proposed accused, had no locus standi to challenge a non-adverse order. The Court agreed with the legal requirement that a complainant must first comply with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) before seeking a direction under Section 156(3), as held by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava. The Court observed that the direction to comply with Section 154(3) was not an exercise of inherent power, nor a review of an earlier order since no order existed earlier; it merely implemented binding Supreme Court directions and was intended to check misuse of the provision. The Court held that although prior to 01.07.2024 an accused had no locus before the JMFC, a proposed accused could approach the High Court, but the application should not be entertained because the order was not adverse to the applicants and the Magistrate had obeyed binding law. Accordingly, the Criminal Application was dismissed. The Court clarified that if any action was taken by the police or any order was passed by the Magistrate against the applicants, they would be at liberty to take appropriate steps before the appropriate court.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Pre-cognizance Investigation - Compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 154(1), 154(3), 156(3) - The Magistrate directed the complainant to comply with Section 154(3) before considering the prayer for investigation under Section 156(3). The High Court held that such direction is in consonance with Priyanka Srivastava and not an exercise of inherent power or review. Held that the direction ensures checks on misuse of private complaints and does not cause prejudice to proposed accused (Paras 5-9). B) Criminal Procedure - Locus Standi of Proposed Accused - Challenge to Pre-cognizance Order - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 156(3) - The applicants/proposed accused challenged the Magistrate's order directing the complainant to comply with Section 154(3). The Court held that although before 01.07.2024 an accused has no locus before JMFC, they may approach the High Court, but the application is not to be entertained as the direction is not adverse to the applicants and merely implements binding Supreme Court law. Held that the application lacked merit and was dismissed with liberty to approach appropriate court if any action or order is passed against them (Paras 1, 7-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the applicants/proposed accused have locus standi to challenge the Magistrate's order dated 15.12.2021 directing the complainant to comply with Section 154(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Final Decision
Criminal Application dismissed. The court held that the Magistrate's direction to comply with Section 154(3) CrPC was in accordance with binding Supreme Court precedent and not adverse to the applicants. Applicants/proposed accused at liberty to take appropriate steps if any action or order is passed against them.
Law Points
- Compliance with Sections 154(1) and 154(3) CrPC is mandatory before seeking direction under Section 156(3) CrPC
- proposed accused has no locus before JMFC pre-01.07.2024 but may approach High Court
- direction to comply with Section 154(3) is not adverse
- not an exercise of inherent power
- and not a review of an earlier order
- Priyanka Srivastava binding
