P&H HC emits guidelines for magistrates to consider cancellation reports, the FIR lodge request by virtue of BNSS

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has published a multitude of directives to the magistrates on taking into account cancellation reports and rest requests under article 156 (3) of the CRPC. (Article 175 (3) of BNSS), observing the variations in the manner, in which the magistrates treat it.

Judge Harpreet Singh BRAR said, “As a vigilant guardian of the rights of citizens, the courts are responsible for ensuring that these provisions are not unhealthy to harass individuals or to overthrow the regular procedure. The provisions under articles 156 and 173 of the CR.PC (now articles 175 and 193 of BNSS) are powerful legal instruments, intended to maintain justice, however, their blind use can cause unnecessary difficulties. Judicial surveillance is therefore imperative to prevent abuse while ensuring that legitimate grievances receive the attention they deserve. “”

“To ensure uniformity and legal consistency”, the court published the following directives:

Guidelines to consider cancellation reports under article 173 of CR.PC (now article 193 of BNSS):

a) The role of magistrates in the evaluation of the cancellation report is therefore strictly confined to the legal options available under the CR.PC (now BNSS).

When a cancellation report is presented by the investigating officer, concluding that no offense seems to have been committed, the magistrate has the following three options:

(i) Accept the report and delete the procedure.

(ii) in disagreement with the relationship, become aware of the offense and emission process.

(iii) lead a more in -depth investigation by the police under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of BNSS)

(b) The magistrate should not lead a more in -depth investigation only on the basis of the complainant’s dissatisfaction in the cancellation report. Ordering a more in-depth investigation at the IPSE dixit du complainant could prove to be detrimental to the cause of justice, because it is an interested part and may have ulterior motives. It is not the satisfaction of the complainant, which would ultimately matter, but the satisfaction of the court alone for the end of acceptance or rejection of the cancellation report. If such an disappeared approach is authorized, it will not only make the least impossible for criminal courts to conclude procedures, but also to endanger the concept of free, fair and rapid trial. The complainant is obliged to specifically indicate the gaps in the investigation and to demonstrate what element of crucial evidence was ignored or neglected by the investigating officer, which would require a more in -depth investigation.

(c) When the magistrate considers it necessary to direct a more in -depth investigation, the order thus adopted must reflect the satisfaction supported by the judicial reasoning, demonstrating that:

(i) Certain crucial evidence has been neglected by the investigation agency.

(ii) a key element of evidence or material documents, which would help the effective arbitration of the case, must be collected.

(iii) the investigator acted with prejudices or in a way

hinders the course of justice.

(These illustrations are enumerative and not exhaustive)

The magistrate must record his guided conclusions by objective standards of reason and justice.

Guidelines concerning requests under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of BNSS):

(a) During the exercise of the authority under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of the BNSS), the magistrate must not order the recording of A FIR simply by reiterating the allegations leveled by the complainant in demand.

(b) The order ordering the registration of a FIR under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of the BNSS) must demonstrate the application of the spirit . The justification for the management of an investigation under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of the BNSS) must be explicitly reflected in the order and simply declaring that the magistrate examined the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, would be considered inadequate. Although an exhaustive explanation is not required, reasoning must be clear and dictated by objectivity.

c) In accordance with the instructions issued by the Supreme Court of Honorable to Priyanka Srivastava vs. UP status, (2015) 6 SCC 287 and the subsequent incorporation of the same in article 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), all requests under article 156 (3) of CR.PC or article 175 (3) BNS must be supported by a sworn affidavit. These affidavits should confirm that the applicant exhausted appeals under articles 154 (1) and 154 (3) CR.PC (now articles 173 (1) and 173 (4) of BNSS) before requesting an intervention from the magistrate . In order to support the affidavit, the relevant support documents must also be joined.

The filing of such a affidavit was made before the filing of a request under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of the BNSS), with the intention to prevent The undue harassment of the accused. The objective is to ensure that only candidates in good faith with legitimate grievances benefit from this provision and that citizens remain safeguarded from frivolous complaints.

(d) The courts are not supposed to act as passive information issuers, but must carefully examine whether an investigation by the State is truly justified. In this vein, the magistrate should not act as a simple conduit to transmit complaints to the police. The courts must avoid the outdated practice of simply passing the back to the investigation agency commonly.

The court specified that a more dynamic and dynamic approach to advance the cause of the reasonable character is necessary, thus enthroning justice as a principle of primordial guidance in judicial decision -making.

“If the complaint presents simple allegations which can be directly judged by recording evidence and by proceedings, the magistrate should adopt this course instead of unnecessarily involving the police under article 156 (3) of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) on the part of the CR.PC (now article 175 (3) of de BNSS), ” The judge added.

Judge Brar ordered the magistrates of the states of Punjab and Haryana as well as the territory of the Chandigarh Union to strictly adhere to the aforementioned directives to ensure coherence and judicial property and confirm the majesty of the law.

Mr. Manuj Nagrath, defender of the petitioner.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. AG, Punjab.

Title: PAWAN KHARBANDA c. State of punjab and another

Click here to read / download the command