High Court · 2025

Petition under section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to Quash/set-aside the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 passed by the lX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate. cyberabad, at Kukatpally in s.R.No 1343 of 2023 and direct the respondent to conduct a fair investigation by registering FIR for the complaint dared 28.10.2022 bearing acknowledgement number-cyB C N R_CYB/28 1 0221 0227 7, thereof . l.A. NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal petition, the High court may be pleased to direct the respondent to stricfly act in accordance with law without any deviation, thereof, and, for the present. This Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Memorandum of Grounds of criminal Petition and upon hearing the arguments of sri sANJAy CHERUKURI, Advocate for the Petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar Dodla, the Additional Public Prosecutor on behalf of the Respondent. The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CRIMINAL PETITION No.15967 of2024 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is liled challenging the docket order dated 13.1O.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 2OO-2O3 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. /z I 2 5(S,J Crl. P. No.15967 of 2024 I

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 iurisdiction over the porice to direct registration of an FIR and investigation, as held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.pr. 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 z . He also relies on various Judgments of the Hon,ble Supreme Court, including Srinivas Gundluri v. SEpCO Electric Power Construction Corporation3, Dilawar Singh v. State of '1zooa1 z scc aos 'z1rss:; suppt. (4) scc 260 '(zoro) a scc zoo 3 SKSJ Crl.P.No.15957 of 2024 Delhia, and Anju Chaudhary v. State of Uttar pradeshs, 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, reiying on the judgment of the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava and Anr v. State Of U.p. and Orso. 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 clismissed 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 o lzootl tz sccan t lzor:1 o scc :aa u zots 1oy scc zsz I i 4 5t(sJ Crl.P.No.15967 of 2024 that the petitioner initially approached the police and hled 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. B. 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 n on-cognizable offence, Section 156(3) allows the complainant to approach the concerned Magistrate, who can direct the Investigating Oflicer to register the case.

9. In the present case, the petitioner has placed on record the necessary documents, including proof of hling a report before the l ' I l i 5 src,J Cr1.P,No.15967of2024 concerrred 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.IO.2O23 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 Ofhcer for case registration, in accordar-rce with 1aw. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// SD/. MOHD. ISMAIL DFPUTY REGISTRAR -SECTION OFFICER The lX Additional Metropotitan Ma gtstrate. Cyber The Station House Officer, police Station Chandanagar Two CCs to the pUBLIC PROSECUTOR High Court at Hyderabad One CC to SRt SANJAY CHERUKURT Two CD Copies Advocate [OPUC] ad, at Kukatpally (our) To, 1 2 4 5 Tpk/gh Y EHfa+*.- HIGH COURT DATED: 1710312025 1r{E ST4 ( ( C 2 6 frAY 20?5 ..* Slr r. -=: n * trC ORDER CRLP.No.15967 of 2024 CRIMINAL PETITION IS ALLOWED f