Mandating Proper Forum for FIR Registration Grievances: A New Framework Under Section 156(3) CrPC and BNSS: Orissa High Court

Introduction

The case of Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha before the Orissa High Court has reaffirmed the established legal principle regarding the redressal of grievances related to the non-registration of FIRs. The petitioner, Swarnalata Jena, sought a direct judicial direction to register an FIR against certain police officers under a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

The core issue revolves around the proper procedural forum to address a complaint regarding the non-registration of an FIR. Instead of approaching the designated Magistrate as required by law, the petitioner chose to directly approach the High Court seeking judicial intervention. This decision raised key questions concerning the appropriate recourse and the delineation of judicial responsibilities between the High Courts and the lower judicial authorities.

The case brings into focus relevant statutory provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), foregrounding the judicial insistence that FIR registration grievances must be first escalated through the correct procedural channel. Additionally, the Judgment refers to significant Apex Court decisions, thereby underlining a coherent framework for managing such grievances.

Summary of the Judgment

The Orissa High Court, presided over by Justice G. Satapathy, dismissed the petition filed by Swarnalata Jena. The court emphasized that the aggrieved party should have initiated the remedy by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate, in accordance with Chapter XIII of the BNSS and Section 175(3) of the same Act.

The Court underscored that the remedy available under Sections 36, 154(3) and notably Section 156(3) of the CrPC, is specifically tailored for addressing grievances regarding non-registration or improper investigation of FIRs. By referring to relevant precedents, including the decisions in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, the Court reinforced that any deviation in approach would overwhelm the High Courts with routine FIR redressal matters.

Furthermore, the recent decision in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra was cited to clarify that Magistrates should exercise judicial discretion, including examining police submissions before directing any investigation. Consequently, the Court declined to direct the registration of the FIR and advised the petitioner to resort to the appropriate forum.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Several landmark decisions were referenced to guide this judgment:

Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2008) 2 SCC 409 – This seminal decision elaborated that the Magistrate possesses extensive powers to ensure the registration of an FIR and to monitor an investigation. The judgment in Sakiri Vasu provided the principle that FIR grievances should be addressed via sections of the criminal procedure that empower Magistrates rather than by direct High Court intervention.
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 – The Apex Court reaffirmed that applicants with FIR registration grievances must resort to the remedial provisions of Section 156(3) CrPC rather than initiating writ or Section 482 CrPC petitions in High Courts. This reinforced the exclusivity of the appropriate forum for registering FIR-related disputes.
Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra and others (2025 Live Law (SC) 139) – Adding a more recent perspective, this decision not only confirmed the procedural mandate but also emphasized that a Magistrate must adopt a thorough inquiry by analyzing both the complainant’s petition and the police officer’s submissions before directing any investigation.

These precedents collectively influenced the reasoning of the Orissa High Court, ensuring consistency in the application of judicial principles governing FIR registration and investigation.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning was anchored on a clear interpretation of the procedural safeguards laid down in both the BNSS and CrPC. The main points of the reasoning include:

Jurisdictional Competence: The petitioner’s complaint pertained to an issue that, by law, must be addressed by a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The route via the High Court was, therefore, procedurally incorrect.
Doctrine of Alternate Remedy: The judgment highlighted that when a grievance involves non-registration of an FIR, the remedy lies with the Magistrate – who, after considering submissions from both the complainant and the police, can either direct the recording of the FIR or recommend changes in the investigation process.
Judicial Economy: The Court was wary of becoming inundated with writ petitions that concern issues which have clearly been allocated to the lower judiciary. This reflects a deliberate effort to maintain judicial efficiency and avoid the misuse of High Court resources.
Comprehensive Inquiry Requirement: Drawing from Om Prakash Ambadkar, the Court stressed that the Magistrate’s duty is not to mechanically direct the police but to exercise a judicial approach while weighing the complexity of the complaint and police inputs.

The integration of these principles reaffirmed existing jurisprudence while clarifying the limits of High Court intervention in FIR-related grievances.

Impact

The judgment has several potential implications:

Reaffirmation of Procedural Channels: By delineating that FIR registration issues must be firstly addressed to the Magistrate, the judgment reinforces existing procedural norms and discourages bypassing lower forums.
Limiting Judicial Overreach: The decision restrains the High Courts from encroaching upon matters that are within the competence of judicial magistracies. This upholds the principle of judicial economy and efficiency.
Enhanced Judicial Discipline: The requirement for Magistrates to consider police submissions in cases under BNSS promotes a judicious and balanced approach. It ensures that investigations are not directed without requisite inquiry, thereby safeguarding procedural fairness.
Future Litigation Strategy: Litigants with FIR-related grievances will now be more cautious in choosing their forum, steering clear of direct appeals to High Courts and opting to invoke the prescribed procedures under Section 156(3) CrPC and BNSS.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Several legal concepts featured in the judgment warrant clarification:

Non-registration of FIR: This refers to instances where a police officer refuses to formally record a criminal complaint even after a complaint has been submitted. Under the law, there is a prescribed procedure to challenge this refusal, but it must be done via the appropriate judicial route.
Section 156(3) CrPC: This provision empowers a Magistrate to direct an investigation when a complaint regarding non-registration or improper investigation is satisfactorily presented.
Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita (BNSS): A recent statutory framework that outlines citizens' rights and the corresponding obligations and powers of law enforcement, including clear guidelines for addressing grievances about FIR registration.
Alternate Remedy Principle: This principle stresses that even if an aggrieved party is dissatisfied with the police response, there exists a legally prescribed forum (i.e., the Magistrate) to seek redressal, thereby preventing the misuse of writ petitions in High Courts.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the judgment in Swarnalata Jena v. State of Odisha clarifies that FIR-related grievances must be directed to the appropriate judicial forum – namely, the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC and the provisions of the BNSS. The decision carefully employs established precedents to guide its reasoning, ensuring consistency with earlier Apex Court rulings such as Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe.

This structured approach not only minimizes unnecessary judicial intervention at the High Court level but also reinforces the necessity of a balanced, investigative, and judicially supervised process to ensure proper investigation. The significance of this decision lies in its potential to shape future litigation concerning FIR registration and the broader principles of judicial economy and procedural propriety.

Mandating Proper Forum for FIR Registration Grievances: A New Framework Under Section 156(3) CrPC and BNSS