Lack of Locus and Failure to Disclose Cognizable Offence Bar Section 156(3) CrPC Directions Against Encroachments

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error or perversity in dismissing the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application for want of foundational evidence.

The court held

The Court held that the Magistrate’s order was neither perverse nor suffered from jurisdictional infirmity.

It also directed

It concluded that the petitioner lacked the locus standi for the relief prayed for and that the complaint lacked bona fides.

The Criminal Revision Case was dismissed, and the dismissal of the Section 156(3) application was upheld.

01Facts

The petitioner, a self-proclaimed social activist, filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the Judicial Magistrate II, Chengalpattu.

p. 2

He alleged that Vidyasagar College had encroached upon 8,165 sq. ft. of Government land and a water body in Survey No. 64.

p. 2

Despite a complaint dated 30.06.2024 to the Superintendent of Police, no FIR was registered.

p. 2

The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the application on 12.08.2024, citing a lack of documentary evidence to prove the encroachment or the commission of a cognizable offence.

pp. 2-3

The petitioner moved the High Court in revision to set aside this dismissal.

p. 1

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Magistrate committed a jurisdictional error or perversity in dismissing the Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application for want of foundational evidence.

p. 4 / para. 7

ii.2. Whether a third-party "social activist" has an unfettered right to invoke Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to register an FIR for alleged encroachment of Government property.

pp. 4-5 / para. 9-10

03Law Applied

The court applied Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the Magistrate's power to order an investigation.

p. 2

It relied on the precedent Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024 SCC Online SC 726), which dictates that criminal law cannot be set in motion unless factual allegations disclose the essential ingredients of a cognizable offence.

p. 4 / para. 8

It further observed that the removal of encroachments is governed by specific tax/revenue statutes and the authority of the State, rather than private criminal complaints by third parties.

pp. 3-4 / para. 6

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 397 Section 401 Section 156

04Reasoning

The Court observed that the petitioner is neither the owner nor in possession of the subject property, and no personal or proprietary rights of his were infringed.

p. 3 / para. 5

The Court reasoned that the protection of Government lands is a statutory duty of Revenue authorities, and a direction under Section 156(3) cannot be issued as a matter of course for simple allegations of encroachment.

pp. 3-4 / para. 6

Applying the Sharif Ahmed principle, the Court found the complaint "bereft of the necessary factual foundation" as the petitioner failed to produce any documents showing that a cognizable offence had been committed.

p. 4 / para. 8

The Court further noted that observations from other benches regarding the prosecution of encroachers do not grant "every third party" an unfettered right to bypass statutory administrative remedies in favor of criminal proceedings.

pp. 4-5 / para. 9