Criminal Law : Offence under S.420 of IPC, 1860 and Role of Magistrate

Criminal Law : Offence under S.420 of IPC, 1860 and Role of Magistrate

In a recent Judgment allegations under S.420 of IPC were made which were dealt with and legal principles were explained.

Options under S.156 (3)

When complaint is presented before a Magistrate, he has 2 options. One is to pass an order as contemplated under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The second one is to direct examination of complainant on oath and the witnesses, if present, and further proceed in the manner provided under Section 202. An order under Section 156(3) is in the nature of peremptory reminder or intimation to the police to exercise its plenary power of investigation under Section 156(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 

Thus, powers under Section 156(3) are exercisable at precognizance stage and in the latter, powers are exercisable at postcognizance stage.

Thus, what Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 contemplates is, registration of an offence on existence of material about commission of cognizable offence. Once a court is convinced or satisfied that, allegations levelled in the complaint does disclose commission of cognizable offence, then investigation into the offence necessarily follows. Needless to say, directions under Section 156(3) are to be issued only after application of judicious mind. It is only expected of the Court exercising powers under Section 156(3) to assess whether complaint disclosed cognizable offence, and not to travel to find out whether allegations are true or substantiated. Prima facie satisfaction about disclosure of cognizable offence is sine qua non invoking powers under Section 156(3).

Simultaneous Proceedings

Here in this case, allegations are of both nature, i.e. civil as well as criminal in nature. Civil and Criminal proceedings may go simultaneously in one case, i.e. in the same set of facts, there may be civil liability as well as criminal liability.

However, it is anathema to suppose that when civil remedy is available, criminal prosecution is completely barred.

For more details refer Jugalkishor Tikamchand Gilda v Gopal Harikisan Chandak [2025] GCtR 1700 (Aurangabad, Bombay).