Telangana High Court
Cherukuri Ranganayakamma vs The State Of Telangana on 17 March, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.15967 of 2024
ORDER:
This Criminal Petition is filed challenging the docket order
dated 13.10.2023 passed in Crl.S.R.No.1343 of 2023 by the
learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad
Commissionerate at Kukatpally.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petition filed under
Section 156(3) of the CrPC was found to be defective as it failed to
mention the name of any accused person, instead listing the SHO
of Chandanagar as the respondent. The court observed that the
petition lacked clarity on who the complainant was seeking an
order against. Furthermore, the petition was not drafted in the
correct format, deviating from the procedure outlined under
Sections 200-203 of the CrPC. The petitioner appeared to be
seeking broad directions for the police to investigate an association
without specifying the responsible individuals. The court dismissed
the petition, citing that such directions fell outside the scope of
Section 156(3) CrPC.
SKS,J
3. Heard Sri Ch. Sanjay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner as well as Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, learned Additional
Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial
Court erroneously dismissed the petition filed under Section 156(3)
read with Section 190 of the CrPC, at the pre-cognizance stage and
that the Magistrate has supervisory jurisdiction over the Police to
direct registration of an FIR and investigation, as held in Sakiri
Vasu v. State of U.P 1. He further submitted that the power of the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., is wide enough to
include all incidental powers necessary for ensuring a proper
investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an
FIR and direct a proper investigation. He contended that prior
notice and an opportunity of hearing are not required to be given to
an accused at the stage of registration of an FIR or passing a
direction under Section 156(3), as held in Union of India v. W.N.
Chadha 2 . He also relies on various Judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, including Srinivas Gundluri v. SEPCO Electric
Power Construction Corporation 3 , Dilawar Singh v. State of
(2008) 2 SCC 409
(1993) Suppl. (4) SCC 260
(2010) 8 SCC 206
SKS,J
Delhi 4 , and Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar Pradesh 5 , to
support his contentions.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the
petitioner had already lodged a report with the police, but since no
action was taken, he reported the matter to the Commissioner of
Police via registered post. As no action was initiated against the
accused, he approached the trial court and filed a petition under
Section 156(3) of the CrPC, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr v. State Of U.P.
and Ors 6. Therefore, he prayed the Court to set aside the order of
the trial Court by allowing this criminal petition.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
countered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, stating that the trial Court correctly dismissed the
petition since it lacked the necessary information under Section
156(3) of the Cr.P.C., rendering it informal, therefore, he prayed
the Court to dismiss the criminal petition.
7. Upon considering the submissions made by both the learned
counsel and reviewing the material available on record, it is evident
(2007) 12 SCC 641
(2013) 6 SCC 384
2015 (6) SCC 287
SKS,J
that the petitioner initially approached the Police and filed a report
seeking action against the accused, for which he received an
acknowledgment. As the Investigating Officer took no action, the
petitioner reported the matter to the Commissioner of Police via
registered post. The trial Court dismissed the petition on the
ground that the petitioner, despite having knowledge of the offence
and the accused, made the Station House Officer (SHO) a
respondent instead of the accused and that the petition was in a
particular format. However, it is pertinent to note that there is no
prescribed format for filing a petition under Section 156(3) of the
Cr.P.C.
8. A thorough reading of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. necessitates
consideration of the preceding sections, namely 154 and 155 of
Cr.P.C. These sections empower the Investigating Officer to register
cases involving cognizable and non-cognizable offences. When the
police refuse to register a case for a non-cognizable offence, Section
156(3) allows the complainant to approach the concerned
Magistrate, who can direct the Investigating Officer to register the
case.
9. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record the
necessary documents, including proof of filing a report before the
SKS,J
concerned SHO and sending a complaint to the Commissioner of
Police. The trial Court ought to have examined these documents
and determined whether the contents of the complaint constituted
cognizable offences. If so, it should have directed the SHO to
register a case. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing the
petition without adhering to the procedure established by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Priyanka Srivastava (supra).
10. In view thereof, this Criminal Petition is allowed setting aside
the docket order dated 13.10.2023 passed in Crl.S.R.No.1343 of
2023 by the learned IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate,
Cyberabad Commissionerate at Kukatpally. Consequently, the
trial court is directed to reconsider the petition, examine the
contents of the report, and decide whether to refer the matter to
the Investigating Officer for case registration, in accordance with
law.
Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand
closed.
_______________
K. SUJANA, J
.Date: 17.03.2025
SAI
