Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar 1997 (Case Summary)

The case of Madhu Bala v. State primarily concerns the procedural correctness of the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code”) in directing the registration of an FIR.

Facts of Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar 

1. Madhu Bala filed a complaint before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra, alleging offences under Sections 498A (cruelty towards a married woman) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”).
2. The Magistrate, invoking his power under Section 156(3) of the Code, directed the police to register a case and investigate.
3. Consequently, the Police Station registered an FIR, and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against the respondents under Sections 498A and 406 IPC.
4. Upon perusal, the Magistrate took cognizance of the charge sheet and framed charges against the respondents only under Section 406 IPC, holding that the offence under Section 498A IPC occurred in Karnal.
5. Subsequently, Madhu Bala filed another complaint against the same respondents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karnal, under Section 498A IPC.
6. The Magistrate again directed the police to register a case and investigate under Section 156(3) of the Code. Karnal Police Station registered FIR, and after investigation, submitted a charge sheet against the respondents under Section 498A IPC.
7. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence and framed charges against them.
8. The respondents then approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court under Section 482 of the Code, seeking to quash the proceedings.
9. They contended that the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrates of Kurukshetra and Karnal, directing the registration of cases under Section 156(3), were illegal.

Issues framed

1. Whether a Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of the Code, has the power to direct the registration of a case (FIR) or is limited only to directing an investigation by the police?

Subordinate Court Judgment

The High Court held that a Magistrate could only direct investigation by the police but not the registration of a FIR under Section 156(3) of the Code.

Judgment of Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar 

The Supreme Court analyzed various provisions of the Code and related statutes, including Section 156(3) of the Code, Sections 498A and 406 IPC, and the Indian Police Act, 1861.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India asserted that when a written complaint disclosing a cognizable offence is presented before a Magistrate, they have the discretion to either take cognizance of it under Section 190(1)(a) of the Code and proceed accordingly, or to forward the complaint to the relevant Police Station under Section 156(3) for investigation. Once a direction is issued under Section 156(3), the complaint undergoes a transformation into a report under Section 154 of the Code, which is recognised as the FIR.

Building upon this reasoning, the Supreme Court observed that Section 156(1) of the Code empowers the police to investigate a cognizable ‘case’. The regulations established under the Indian Police Act, 1861, further mandates the police to formally register a case and then proceed with its investigation. Therefore, the Supreme Court clarified when an order for investigation is issued under Section 156(3) of the Code, the appropriate instruction to the Police would be to register a case at the police station, treating the complaint as the First Information Report, and to conduct an investigation accordingly.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and reinstated the criminal proceedings initiated against the respondents, affirming that the Magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) of the Code validly encompassed the registration of an FIR. The Court held that restricting a Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) solely to directing an investigation, without the registration of an FIR, would defeat the very purpose of the provision.

Read the Judgment Below