This case concerns a criminal appeal that challenged an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, rejecting the appellant’s petition seeking quashing of proceedings emanating from an F.I.R registered in 2024.

The question that arose for consideration was whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash the FIR and proceedings arising therefrom, despite rejection by the magistrate of an application u/s.156(3) of the Cr.PC founded on substantially the same allegations.

A 2-Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held –

“Sections 154, 156(3) and 190 disclose a graded statutory scheme, the ordinary and primary recourse of an informant lies with the Police under Section 154 Cr.PC, recourse to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) is a step properly taken where that primary recourse has failed or been refused and cognizance under Section 190 is a distinct and subsequent stage, triggered by any of the three contingencies noted above, and not confined to a police report consequent upon a Section 173 of the Cr.PC direction alone.”

and further held –

“The jurisdiction under Section 156(3), therefore, is confined to directing investigation… The question which therefore arises is whether rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC attains such finality as to preclude subsequent criminal proceedings founded on the same or substantially similar allegations by operation of the doctrine of res judicata.”

The Bench answered this in the negative and held –

“the rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC, being an order rendered at the threshold without any adjudication on the merits after trial, cannot be accorded such finality as would attract the doctrine of res judicata so as to bar the subsequent registration of an FIR or the continuation of criminal proceedings founded upon the same or substantially similar allegations” and “cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC”.

The Bench further reiterated the principles of exercising jurisdiction u/s.482 – “the Court is concerned only with whether the allegations contained in the FIR, taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. At that stage, the Court does not embark upon an enquiry into the correctness, reliability or probative value of the material relied upon by either side.”.

The Bench observed that allegations in the FIR unquestionably disclosed the commission of cognizable offences warranting investigation and accordingly dismissed the appeal.