Magistrate’s discretionary power to treat Section 156(3) application as a complaint and dismiss for lack of grounds.

The Applicant alleged that on December 22, 2015, several persons forcibly entered her residence, assaulted her, used filthy language, and attempted to outrage her modesty.

Despite multiple written complaints to the police between 2013 and 2018, no FIR was registered.

Following a High Court direction in a previous writ petition, the Applicant filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. before the JMFC, Rewa.

The Magistrate opted not to direct an FIR but instead treated the matter as a complaint case, recorded statements under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C., and called for a police report.

On September 26, 2018, the JMFC dismissed the complaint for lack of sufficient grounds.

This dismissal was upheld by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa, in revision on August 18, 2022.

1. Whether the Magistrate is mandatorily required to direct the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. when the complaint discloses a cognizable offence.

2. Whether the concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the complaint warranted interference under the inherent powers of the High Court.

The Court applied Section 156(3) and Chapter XV (Sections 200 and 202) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, noting that a Magistrate has the discretion to either direct an investigation by the police or treat the application as a complaint case.

It relied on the principle that the power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. must be exercised sparingly and only to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The Court maintained that the satisfaction of "sufficient grounds to proceed" is a matter of judicial discretion.

The Court reasoned that upon receiving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., a Magistrate is not a mere post office and can legally choose to proceed under Chapter XV by recording evidence directly.

The JMFC had evaluated the Applicant’s statements alongside the police inquiry report and found a lack of medical evidence to support the assault allegations and a lack of independent corroboration.

The Court found that the Magistrate had independently assessed the material rather than relying solely on a "perfunctory" police report.

Since both the Trial Court and the Revisional Court reached concurrent findings of fact supported by a rational evaluation of the lack of prima facie evidence, there was no perversity or illegality that necessitated the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482.

The Court held that the orders of the JMFC and the 6th Additional Sessions Judge were well-reasoned and did not constitute an abuse of process.

The direct holding was to affirm the dismissal of the complaint and the subsequent revisional order.