15 July 2025 FIR >> Criminal Law  

The High Court has dismissed a petition seeking to overturn concurrent orders from a Magistrate and Sessions Court, both of which declined to direct the registration of an FIR in a land dispute case. The High Court affirmed that the Magistrate's discretion under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) was properly exercised, and that the petitioner's dispute primarily constitutes a civil matter.

The petitioner, Mohd. Sajid Benam, claims to be in settled possession of agricultural land in Village Mukundpur, Delhi, which was allegedly allotted to his grandfather. He asserts that he and his family have been cultivating this land for decades. The core of his complaint is that Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 illegally entered the land, commenced construction, including a boundary wall, and destroyed agricultural crops, while also issuing threats to his family.

After failing to receive "substantial relief or intervention" from various administrative and municipal authorities, including the SDM, Divisional Commissioner, and Municipal Corporation, the petitioner filed a complaint with the police in March 2018. Subsequently, in April 2018, he filed an application under Section 156(3) CrPC (seeking directions for FIR registration) and a complaint under Section 200 CrPC (a private complaint) before the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC).

The police submitted an Action Taken Report (ATR) in April 2019. After reviewing the ATR and other materials, the JMFC, in an order dated July 8, 2024, declined to direct FIR registration under Section 156(3) CrPC. However, the JMFC explicitly allowed the petitioner to proceed by leading evidence under Section 200 CrPC, essentially treating it as a private complaint.

Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision Petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, which was also dismissed on April 22, 2025, upholding the JMFC's reasoning. The petitioner then approached the High Court, challenging these concurrent findings.

High Court's Analysis and Conclusion:

The High Court meticulously reviewed the case, emphasizing that its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts is exercised sparingly. The court found no merit in the petitioner's plea, citing several key legal principles:

• Judicious Exercise of Section 156(3) CrPC: The High Court reiterated that a Magistrate's power to direct investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC is not automatic and must be exercised judiciously. It referred to Supreme Court precedents like Madhao & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. (2013), which emphasize that a Magistrate should apply their mind and only direct police investigation if the facts disclose a cognizable offense, and it would be conducive to justice, especially when police assistance is genuinely needed for investigation or custodial interrogation.
• Complainant's Knowledge: Citing Gulab Chand Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. (2002), the court noted that when a complainant possesses complete knowledge of the incident, the identities of the accused, and supporting materials, it is more appropriate to proceed under Chapter XV of the CrPC by leading pre-summoning evidence (Section 200), rather than invoking a police investigation. The JMFC had correctly observed that the facts were primarily within the petitioner's knowledge and did not necessitate police assistance.
• No Necessity for Custodial Interrogation: The High Court agreed with the lower courts that no custodial interrogation was necessary in this case, and the petitioner could conveniently present evidence under Section 200 CrPC. This aligns with the principle that Section 156(3) CrPC should primarily be used for "serious" cases where evidence is beyond the complainant's reach or custodial interrogation is essential.
• Nature of the Dispute: The Revisional Court had rightly observed that the petitioner was involved in a long-standing civil dispute concerning the land. The High Court underscored that disputes over possession and alleged unauthorized construction are more suitably adjudicated in civil proceedings, echoing the Supreme Court's caution in Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. State of Gujarat (2015) against converting civil disputes into criminal prosecutions without adequate foundation.
• Lack of Perversity: The High Court found no "perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity" in the concurrent orders of the lower courts. The discretion exercised by the Magistrate was deemed informed by settled legal principles and the nature of the allegations.

The petition was therefore deemed "devoid of merit" and dismissed, concluding that no exceptional circumstances warranted the High Court's inherent jurisdiction.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973