Supreme Court: Under which circumstances, complainant is not entitled to file similar application U/S 156(3) of CRPC for second time?

 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.