A Magistrate must record reasoned satisfaction before directing FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Respondent No. 2 filed two private complaints alleging that the petitioners, police officials, attempted to kill him and his family by trying to set fire to their premises.

The Additional Special Mobile Magistrate, Reasi, directed the SHO, Chasana, to register an FIR and investigate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The petitioners’ revision was dismissed as not maintainable because the Magistrate’s direction was interlocutory.

The petitioners then invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, challenging, among other things, the Magistrate’s failure to apply its mind and record satisfaction before directing investigation.

1. Whether the High Court could examine the Magistrate’s direction under Section 482 CrPC despite the bar on revision of interlocutory orders under Section 397(2) CrPC.

2. Whether the Magistrate’s direction to register an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC was sustainable where the order did not disclose the required application of mind or recorded satisfaction.

3. Whether the complainant’s alleged criminal antecedents warranted quashing the complaints.

Under Section 156(3) CrPC, a Magistrate may direct police investigation, but must apply judicial mind to whether the complaint discloses a cognizable offence and whether police investigation is warranted; the order should reflect that consideration (Anil Kumar v. M.K. Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705; Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan, (2006) 1 SCC 627).

A direction under Section 156(3) is interlocutory and is not revisable under Section 397(2) CrPC, but the High Court may intervene under Section 482 CrPC where necessary to prevent abuse of process or address an order passed without jurisdiction or in disregard of mandatory requirements (Father Thomas v. State of U.P., (2011) 1 SCC 462).

An application under Section 156(3) should be supported by an affidavit to deter casual or mala fide applications, particularly those against public servants; the statutory requirement under Section 175(3) BNSS did not apply to this case.

A complainant’s criminal antecedents may bear on credibility but do not, by themselves, establish that no cognizable offence is disclosed or bar the complaint.

The High Court accepted that the revision was barred because the direction to investigate was interlocutory, but held that this did not foreclose recourse to Section 482 CrPC.

The Magistrate’s order merely noted that the complainant had approached the police and the SSP and then directed registration of an FIR; it did not address the allegations, any prima facie material, or why investigation was necessary.

This omission was particularly significant because the allegations were against police personnel and called for care and caution.

The Court therefore found the order unsustainable as a non-speaking order, without expressing a view on the merits of either version.

The complainant’s alleged history-sheeter status did not independently justify quashing the complaints.

The complaints were restored for reconsideration and fresh orders in accordance with law; the Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations.

The judgment also directed the complainant to appear before the Magistrate and required the Registry to transmit the order to the trial court.