The Orissa High Court has ruled that a Magistrate must hear a police officer’s reasons for refusing to register a First Information Report (FIR) before ordering an investigation. The court emphasized that the Magistrate must apply judicial mind to both the complainant’s affidavit-supported application and the police officer’s submissions.
Court’s Key Observations
A Single Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy clarified the legal position under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The court stated that a Magistrate must pass reasoned orders in a comprehensive manner after considering both the complaint and the police officer’s response.
Petitioner’s Case and Court’s Ruling
The petitioner had filed an FIR, but the police did not register it. Instead of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, she went directly to the High Court, seeking a direction to the police.
The court ruled that as per established legal principles, an aggrieved person must first seek redress before the Magistrate. Since the petitioner failed to do so, the High Court dismissed her petition, granting her liberty to approach the appropriate forum.
Legal Framework Under BNSS
The court highlighted Chapter XIII of the BNSS, which provides a legal remedy when police refuse to register an FIR. Section 175(3) of BNSS empowers the Magistrate to order an investigation, but only if the complainant has:
First applied to the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 173(4).
Submitted a copy of the application to the SP along with an affidavit while approaching the Magistrate.
Supreme Court’s View on FIR Non-Registration
The Supreme Court has consistently discouraged filing writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 of the CrPC for FIR non-registration. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court ruled that the correct legal remedy lies under:
Sections 36 and 154(3) of CrPC before police officers.
Section 156(3) of CrPC before the Magistrate.
Filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 of CrPC.
This was reaffirmed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, where the Supreme Court ruled that a Magistrate must ensure FIR registration and proper investigation if a prima facie case exists.
New Changes Under BNSS
The Supreme Court, in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, highlighted three major changes in BNSS compared to CrPC Section 156(3):
Mandatory SP Application: The complainant must first apply to the SP before approaching the Magistrate.
Magistrate’s Inquiry Powers: The Magistrate can conduct an inquiry before ordering an FIR registration.
Police Officer’s Submissions: The Magistrate must hear the police officer’s reasons for FIR refusal before ordering an investigation.
Conclusion
The Orissa High Court reaffirmed that approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate is the correct legal route for FIR non-registration complaints. The judgment underscores the need for Magistrates to apply judicial mind, conduct inquiries, and ensure that orders are based on both police submissions and complainants’ grievances.
