The Chhattisgarh High Court rules that Magistrates must conduct an inquiry by recording the complainant’s preliminary evidence before dismissing a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC; simply considering the pleadings and documents is insufficient. The judgment affirms existing precedent and is binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh for complaints seeking registration of FIRs, especially in cheating cases under Section 420 IPC.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRMP/2562/2025 of ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010352482025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OFF |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE PARTH PRATEEM SAHU |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of the Sessions Judge, clarifies Magistrate’s duties |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure – Pre-Cognizance Inquiry under Section 156(3) CrPC/BNSS 2023 |
| Questions of Law | Whether a Magistrate must record preliminary evidence before dismissing a complaint seeking registration of FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC for cheating (Section 420 IPC) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Magistrate, when faced with a complaint/application under Section 156(3) CrPC/BNSS alleging commission of a cognizable offence (such as cheating under Section 420 IPC), must give the complainant an opportunity to produce preliminary (pre-summoning) evidence and conduct the necessary inquiry before deciding whether to direct registration of FIR or dismiss the complaint. Simple rejection after perusal of pleadings and documents, without inquiry, is not tenable in law. The Sessions Judge was correct in setting aside such dismissal and remanding the matter for proper inquiry. The High Court declined to interfere further, citing correct judicial procedure regarding the two options available to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed money, promising repayment at the time of the complainant’s daughter’s marriage, and later defaulted, including defaulting on car loan installments after an assurance. The Magistrate rejected the complaint without inquiry. The Sessions Judge remanded for pre-summoning evidence. The High Court upheld the remand. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44923 (Neutral citation) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, in interpreting procedural aspects of Section 156(3) CrPC/BNSS |
| Follows | Established principles regarding inquiry before dismissal of complaints (no specific case cited in the text) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment reiterates that Magistrates must record pre-summoning evidence and conduct an inquiry before dismissing a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, especially when cognizable offences like cheating are alleged.
- Dismissal of a complaint solely on the basis of pleadings and documents, without such inquiry, is improper.
- Remand orders from revisional courts directing Magistrates to conduct proper inquiry before dismissal are legally proper.
- Lawyers should ensure that clients seeking registration of FIR via private complaints are given an opportunity to present preliminary evidence.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court reviewed the sequence wherein the Magistrate dismissed the complaint after reviewing the application and documents, without recording any pre-summoning evidence or conducting inquiry.
- The Sessions Judge observed that this procedure was improper and remanded the case for inquiry as per law.
- The High Court affirmed that, on a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC, the Magistrate has two options: direct investigation by the Police, or proceed to record the complainant’s and witnesses’ evidence, and then decide on summoning or dismissal.
- As the opportunity for preliminary evidence was not given, the Sessions Judge’s remand was proper; Magistrates cannot dismiss such complaints at the threshold without inquiry.
- The High Court did not comment on the merits, as the remand for procedural reasons was correct; thus, the revision had no substance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The Magistrate erred by dismissing the complaint without appreciating facts and evidence.
- The complaint disclosed a cognizable offence under Section 420 IPC, warranting registration of FIR and investigation, not remand.
- Sought setting aside of the order remanding for preliminary evidence.
Respondent-State
- The Sessions Judge committed no error.
- The revisional court rightly did not direct registration of FIR, but remanded for proper inquiry.
Factual Background
- The complainant claimed that the respondent borrowed money, promising repayment at the time of the complainant’s daughter’s marriage, and later defaulted.
- The respondent allegedly asked the complainant to refinance his car, promising to pay installments, but defaulted after one payment.
- A written undertaking was given by the respondent to pay back a set amount monthly, but payment was not made.
- A complaint was filed under Section 156(3) CrPC for an offence under Section 420 IPC.
- Magistrate dismissed the complaint without inquiry.
- Revision was filed; Sessions Judge set aside the dismissal and remanded for recording of pre-summoning evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court discussed Section 156(3) of the CrPC (and its equivalent in the BNSS, 2023), outlining that upon receipt of a complaint, the Magistrate may either direct a police investigation or proceed to examine the complainant and witnesses.
- It clarified that before dismissing a complaint, the Magistrate must conduct an inquiry by recording preliminary evidence.
- The obligation to provide an opportunity for pre-summoning evidence is rooted in procedural fairness.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment restates the procedural obligation: Rejection of a complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC without conducting an inquiry by recording pre-summoning evidence is improper.
- Specifies that remand directing such inquiry is the correct procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment affirms and clarifies established law regarding the procedure on complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44923 (Neutral citation)