The Supreme Court has ruled that the police can register an FIR even after a Magistrate rejects an application seeking registration under Section 156(3) of the CrPC or Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

A Bench of Justices Prashant Kumar Mishra and NV Anjaria held that rejection of a Section 156(3) application does not curtail the police's independent statutory duty to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence.

“The rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC cannot curtail or extinguish the independent statutory obligation cast upon the Police under Section 154 of the Cr.PC,” the Court observed.

The ruling came in Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, where the appellant had challenged an Allahabad High Court decision refusing to quash an FIR registered in a cheating case.

The accused argued that the FIR could not have been registered after the Magistrate had rejected the complainant's application under Section 156(3). He contended that since the Magistrate had called for a police report on the allegations, the rejection amounted to a decision on the merits.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that an order under Section 156(3) merely concerns whether the Magistrate should direct the police to investigate. It does not adjudicate the truth or merits of the allegations and therefore cannot prevent the subsequent registration of an FIR.

The Bench further held that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked to bar a subsequent FIR merely because a Section 156(3) application was rejected.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Mahendri & Others v. State of U.P. & Another (2015), which had similarly held that rejection of a Section 156(3) application does not determine the merits of the allegations or their truthfulness.

The Bench also emphasised that the police's duty under Section 154 of the CrPC / Section 173 of the BNSS operates independently of proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC / Section 175(3) BNSS.

Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, the Court reiterated that registration of an FIR is mandatory when the information received discloses a cognizable offence. At the registration stage, the police are required only to determine whether the information prima facie reveals a cognizable offence; questions concerning the truth or credibility of the allegations are matters for investigation.

Since the material on record prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Allahabad High Court's decision allowing the criminal proceedings to continue.

The appeal was accordingly dismissed.