The Karnataka High Court has recently issued guidelines for magistrates to follow when granting permission to the police to investigate non-cognizable offences, whether upon request by the police or a complainant.
A single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna stressed the importance of treating the registration of a first information report (FIR) with due seriousness. The judge emphasized that magistrates cannot pass orders without a proper application of mind, and thus, granting permission should not be viewed as a frivolous act.
“Permitting registration of a 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 order stated.
Additionally, the judge expressed concern that magistrates, by failing to apply their minds, have contributed to the increasing backlog of cases in the High Court. The Court acknowledged that a significant amount of litigation, in the form of pleas seeking to quash criminal cases under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), had been generated in the High Court due to the negligent actions of magistrates.
“Therefore, the learned magistrates who pass such orders have contributed/ contributing to the docket explosion before this Court. It is rather unfortunate that the learned Magistrates are contributing to the pendency of such cases in the judiciary itself. It is high time now, that the magistrates should mend their ways and apply their mind to the requisitions received and then pass appropriate orders,” the bench noted.
Furthermore, the judge recalled that the Court had previously urged magistrates to avoid using phrases like “permitted” or “perused permitted” while allowing the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs). Such practices were deemed to lack any application of mind, as stated by the Court. The case being addressed by the Court involved a plea to quash charges under Section 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In considering the plea, the Court referred to the 2016 judgment in Vageppa Gurulinga Jangaligi vs State of Karnataka, wherein a case was quashed due to the lack of application of mind in granting permission to investigate. Despite this precedent, the Court noted that magistrates had not changed their approach. Consequently, the Court ordered the remand of the current case back to the magistrate, instructing them to make appropriate orders in accordance with the law, while considering the observations made in the High Court’s previous order.
Significantly, under Section 483 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the Court exercised its powers of continuous superintendence over Courts of Judicial Magistrates and issued the following guidelines for magistrates:
(i) Magistrates shall record as to who has submitted the requisition for investigation, whether it is the informant or the Station House Officer, and make an endorsement of receipt of requisition in a separate order sheet.
(ii) Magistrates shall not pass any order if the complaint is not enclosed to the requisition.
(iii) Magistrates shall notice and examine the contents of the requisition and record a prima facie finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated. If it is not a fit case to be investigated, the magistrates shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. The order of the magistrates shall bear application of mind, not by rendering a detailed order or detailed inquiry at that stage, but it shall bear application of mind.
(iv) Magistrates should forthwith stop using the words “permitted”, “perused permitted” or “perused requisition permitted registration of FIR” on the requisition itself. Magistrates shall pass separate orders and maintain a separate order sheet with regard to the grant of such permission. Granting permission on the requisition would be contrary to law.
(v) The order of the magistrates shall contain all the aforesaid. Any deviation from what is directed will be construed as the magistrates contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and it would be viewed seriously.
The Court justified the necessity of these guidelines by highlighting the instances where it had previously quashed orders by magistrates that granted permission to register FIRs without any application of mind.
