The short issue for consideration in this appeal
is as to whether the learned Magistrate has the
jurisdiction to invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for
the second time, in spite of the earlier order dated
10.08.2022 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed
the initial application filed by the respondentcomplainant
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as
well as the subsequent closure report filed by the
police, pursuant to the direction given by the High
Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Though arguments have been made by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the State that there is
no bar under law in doing so, the fact remains that
the second round of resorting to Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. is nothing but an attempt to review the
earlier order passed by the High Court. It is also
pertinent to state that the liberty given by the
High Court to the respondent-complainant was only
for the purpose of invoking Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C. Maybe it is an oversight which made the
respondent–complainant to invoke Section 156 (3) of
the Cr.P.C., once again, instead of filing a private
complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Suffice
it to state that the parameters for the invocation
of both the aforesaid sections are quite different.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2193 /2026
MOHAN KARTHIK & ORS. Vs STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
Dated: APRIL 27, 2026.
Leave granted.
We have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the appellants and the learned Senior counsel
appearing for the respondents.
The short issue for consideration in this appeal
is as to whether the learned Magistrate has the
jurisdiction to invoke Section 156(3) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for
the second time, in spite of the earlier order dated
10.08.2022 whereby the learned Magistrate dismissed
the initial application filed by the respondentcomplainant
under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. as
well as the subsequent closure report filed by the
police, pursuant to the direction given by the High
Court to conduct a preliminary inquiry.
Though arguments have been made by the learned
Senior Counsel appearing for the State that there is
no bar under law in doing so, the fact remains that
the second round of resorting to Section 156(3) of
the Cr.P.C. is nothing but an attempt to review the
earlier order passed by the High Court. It is also
pertinent to state that the liberty given by the
High Court to the respondent-complainant was only
for the purpose of invoking Section 200 of the
Cr.P.C. Maybe it is an oversight which made the
respondent–complainant to invoke Section 156 (3) of
the Cr.P.C., once again, instead of filing a private
complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Suffice
it to state that the parameters for the invocation
of both the aforesaid sections are quite different.
In such view of the matter, we set aside the
impugned order dated 07.10.2025 passed by the High
Court and the order of the learned Magistrate dated
23.08.2024 which directed the registration of an
FIR, with a specific direction to the concerned
Magistrate to treat the application filed by the
respondent–complainant invoking Section 156 (3) of
the Cr.P.C. as a private complaint under Section 200
of the Cr.P.C and, thereafter, proceed in accordance
with law.
The appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
3
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
………………………………………………………...J.
[M.M. SUNDRESH]
………………………………………………………...J.
[NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 27, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment