The Bombay High Court, quashed an FIR dated 2nd January 2023 registered at CBD Belapur Police Station, Navi Mumbai, for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The FIR was quashed because the Judicial Magistrate acted beyond the legal scope by first taking cognizance and then reverting to pre-cognizance stages. The judgment reaffirmed that once cognizance is taken, the Magistrate cannot order an FIR under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.).

1. Introduction & Relief Sought (Para 1-2):

• The petitioner, Vinisha Sawant, sought to quash FIR No. 1/2023 registered at CBD Belapur Police Station.
• Offenses cited: IPC Sections 379, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 497, 500, and 504.
• The petition was admitted, and police were restrained from filing a charge sheet during the petition's pendency.

2. Background of the Case (Para 3.1-3.5):

• Petitioner and Respondent Relationship: Petitioner is the wife of Respondent No. 1 (Mahendra Sawant). A matrimonial dispute was in the backdrop.
• Complaint History: The respondent filed a complaint seeking action against the petitioner, which led to an inquiry ordered by the Judicial Magistrate under Section 202 of the Cr.P.C.
• Subsequent FIR: Based on this, an FIR was registered on 2nd January 2023, but the petitioner challenged this.

3. Legal Arguments & Points of Contention (Para 4-6):

• Petitioner's Argument: The Magistrate had no authority to switch between pre-cognizance and post-cognizance stages. Once cognizance was taken, an FIR cannot be registered under Section 156(3).
• Respondent’s Argument: The State justified the FIR, asserting that it reflected a cognizable offense.
• Key Judgments Cited: Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP, Manharibhai Muljibhai Kakadia v. Shaileshbhai Patel, among others, were used to bolster the petitioner's case.

4. Key Legal Issue (Para 7-8):

• The High Court had to decide whether the Magistrate could legally order an FIR once the post-cognizance stage (under Section 202 Cr.P.C.) was initiated. It held that such action by the Magistrate was beyond jurisdiction.

5. Legal Reasoning (Para 8-10):

• Magistrate’s Overreach: The Magistrate had already initiated an inquiry under Section 202, so it was illegal to revert to pre-cognizance by directing an FIR under Section 156(3).
• Erroneous Preliminary Inquiry: The court also found fault in the Magistrate’s directive for a "preliminary inquiry," noting that this power lies solely with the police, not the Magistrate.

6. Final Decision & Quashing of FIR (Para 11-13):

• The High Court concluded that the Magistrate’s actions violated the Criminal Procedure Code's procedural structure.
• Outcome: The FIR was quashed, and the petition was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi:

The judgment is that once a Magistrate takes cognizance of a case and proceeds under Chapter XV of the Cr.P.C., they cannot revert to a pre-cognizance stage by directing an FIR under Section 156(3). The decision reinforces the separation of powers between pre-cognizance (Section 156(3)) and post-cognizance stages (Section 202).

Acts & Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Sections 379, 406, 409, 420, 465, 467, 497, 500, 504.
• Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.):
  • Section 156(3): Powers to order police investigation at the pre-cognizance stage.
  • Section 202: Inquiry post-cognizance.
  • Section 204: Issuance of process.
  • Section 203: Dismissal of the complaint.

Subjects:

• #CriminalProcedureCode
• #QuashingOfFIR
• #MagistrateJurisdiction
• #CriminalLaw
• #HighCourtJudgment