482 quashing of FIR ( priyanka srivastava vs state of up )

986 votes

Dear Sir, Distinction between Section 156(3) and Section 200 Cr.P.C.: Under Section 156(3), the Magistrate directs the police to investigate before taking cognizance. Under Section 200, the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence directly based on the complaint and the sworn statement of the complainant and witnesses. Therefore, the requirement laid down in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 — i.e., filing an affidavit before invoking Section 156(3) — applies only when the Magistrate is asked to order an investigation under Section 156(3). That requirement does not apply to a private complaint under Section 200, where the Magistrate proceeds to take cognizance himself.

Advocate Kishan Dutt Kalaskar LawRato

986 votes

The High Court can quash an FIR resulting from a Section 200 complaint, even if it's related to a case where a police report under Section 156(3) was previously filed and rejected. Here's why ¹ ²: - *Inherent Powers*: The High Court has inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to quash an FIR to prevent abuse of the legal process and secure the ends of justice. - *Section 200 Complaint*: When a magistrate takes cognizance of an offense based on a private complaint under Section 200, it's a separate proceeding from the police investigation under Section 156(3). - *Quashing of FIR*: The court can quash the FIR if it finds that the allegations are frivolous, lack evidence, or are maliciously filed. This power can be exercised even after a charge sheet is filed. To get the FIR quashed, you'd need to demonstrate that ³ ⁴: - *No Prima Facie Case*: There's no prima facie case against you, and the allegations are baseless. - *Abuse of Process*: The FIR was filed with mala fide intentions or as a tool for harassment. - *Lack of Evidence*: There's no credible evidence to support the charges. It's essential to consult with a lawyer who can help you navigate the complexities of your case and present a strong argument for quashing the FIR.

Advocate Narasimhachar M K LawRato