Jahanvi Agarwal
Recently, the Karnataka High Court has strictly warned Magistrates not to deviate from the given guidelines (given below) and gave a warning that doing so would be considered contributing to the already concerning backlogs.
In a recent decision, Justice M. Nagaprasanna, who presided over a single judge bench, stressed the importance of Magistrates exercising their authority under Section 155(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) with utmost care and refraining from haphazardly approving the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) without giving it sufficient consideration.
The Judge stated that:
“Permitting registration of an FIR cannot be a frolicsome act on the part of the Magistrate. The Magistrate exercises power under sub-section (2) of Section 155 of the Cr.P.C., In doing so, it cannot be that he could pass orders which do not bear a semblance of application of mind.”
The court referred to other High Court judgments to highlight circumstances where investigations into non-cognizable offenses were allowed to proceed even though the Magistrates had blatantly failed to use the most reliable judgment.
The Magistrates’ recurrent propensity to give orders with little consideration—and occasionally with only a one-word expression like “permitted”—has alarmed the court. Due to these irresponsible decisions, there has been a surge in litigation. Under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., petitions have been filed seeking the quashing of such orders because of their blatant lack of consideration.
To address this pressing issue and alleviate the burden on the judiciary, the bench issued a series of directions and guidelines for Magistrates to follow diligently:
- Magistrates must explicitly record and acknowledge the identity of the individual submitting the requisition, whether it is the informant or the Station House Officer. This information should be entered in a separate order sheet, ensuring proper documentation.
- Magistrates should refrain from passing any orders if the complaint is not enclosed with the requisition.
- Magistrates are obligated to thoroughly examine the contents of the requisition and render a prima facie determination as to whether it warrants investigation. If the case does not merit investigation, Magistrates must reject the prayer made in the requisition. However, it is important that these orders reflect the application of mind by the Magistrate, even if a detailed inquiry is not conducted at that stage.
- Magistrates must cease using expressions such as “permitted,” “perused permitted,” or “perused requisition permitted registration of FIR” directly on the requisition itself. Instead, separate orders should be passed, with a dedicated order sheet for granting permission. Granting permission directly on the requisition is considered contrary to the law.
All of the aforementioned instructions must be included in the orders that Magistrates issue. Any deviation from these guidelines will be taken extremely seriously and will be seen as directly contributing to the increasing number of pending cases.
The registry was instructed by the court to distribute this order to all of the state’s Magistrates in order to enforce adherence to these rules. The Director General and Inspector General of Police must also be informed of the order to ensure they follow the established procedures.
Case Name: Sri. Vijesh Pillai Vs. State of Karnataka
Diary Number: 11186/2023
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna