Section 156(3) CrPC – Legal Remedy When Police Don’t Act.

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to investigate a cognizable offence even if no First Information Report (FIR) has been filed. In reality, this remedy is applied when an investigation is inadequate or a complainant’s information is disregarded. The Supreme Court has stressed that this power is wide enough to include ordering registration of an FIR and ensuring a proper investigation. However, it must be invoked judiciously: courts have warned that 156(3) is not meant for trivial disputes or cases where the complainant can collect evidence unaided. In short, if a cognizable offence is disclosed and the police have failed or refused to act, the aggrieved person can petition a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC to initiate a fresh inquiry.

Remedies Before Approaching the Court
Before moving the Magistrate, the law encourages a complainant to pursue available remedies with the police hierarchy. The usual sequence is: (1) lodge information at the local police station under Section 154; (2) if the station officer refuses or inaction follows, write to the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 154(3) asking for registration or investigation; (3) if there is still no satisfactory outcome, apply to a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. This progression is endorsed by the Supreme Court (in Sakiri Vasu and M. Subramaniam v. Janaki) as the proper approach: first file a complaint with the police, then if needed escalate to the SP, and finally seek judicial intervention under Section 156(3).

In a recent ruling (July 2025), the Supreme Court clarified that while it is recommended to exhaust the Section 154(3) remedy, failure to do so is not fatal. The Court held that a Magistrate “ought not ordinarily” entertain a Section 156(3) petition without prior recourse to Section 154(3), but if the application discloses a cognizable offence, the Magistrate’s order will not be invalid merely for that procedural lapse. In practical terms, this means it is better to give police reasonable time (often a few weeks) to act after writing to the SP, but a serious complaint need not be indefinitely stalled by red tape.

Key Point: A citizen should normally (a) give a written complaint to the police (Sec 154), (b) if rejected, complain in writing to the SP (Sec 154(3)), and then (c) apply to the Magistrate under Sec 156(3) if the crime is still not registered or investigated.

Filing an Application under Section 156(3)
To invoke Section 156(3), an aggrieved person (complainant) makes a written application to the Magistrate (or files a petition) narrating the facts and attaching any supporting documents. The Supreme Court has emphasised that such an application must disclose a cognizable offence and should be supported by a sworn affidavit verifying the allegations. (Recent decisions reiterate that an affidavit is mandatory to deter frivolous complaints.) In the application, the complainant asks the Magistrate to “direct an investigation” by the police. Legally, the Magistrate is not “taking cognizance” of the offence in the sense of Section 190 CrPC – instead, he or she is ordering the police to investigate the information first. Hence, the Magistrate does not examine the complainant on oath (as would happen in Section 200 proceedings) since the stage is pre-cognizance.

Once the Section 156(3) application is filed, the Magistrate performs a prima facie check: if the facts make out a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may pass an order in terms of Section 156(3). This order typically directs the officer-in-charge of the appropriate police station to treat the application (or attached complaint) as the basis of a new FIR and to proceed with a full investigation. As the Supreme Court explained, when a Magistrate orders an investigation under 156(3), the proper direction is “to register a case at the police station treating the complaint as the first information report and investigate into the same”. In effect, the Magistrate’s order initiates the FIR-registration process.

Step-by-Step:

Draft a petition or application to the Magistrate stating the incident, relevant IPC sections, and facts (attach any documents or evidence).
Verify it by affidavit (to comply with Supreme Court requirements).
Mention attempts (dates, letters) made to the police or SP, if any.
File it before the competent Magistrate (generally the Judicial Magistrate of the area where offence occurred).
Pray for an order directing police investigation under Section 156(3).
Magistrate’s Powers and Process
If satisfied that a cognizable offence is disclosed, the Magistrate has broad powers under Section 156(3) to ensure a proper probe. He or she can direct the police to register the FIR and conduct a full investigation. The Magistrate may also impose timelines (for example, ordering the officer to complete the FIR registration and initial steps within a week or two) and can monitor the progress. Importantly, the Magistrate retains supervisory authority: even after the police file a charge-sheet or final report, the Magistrate can order further investigation if not satisfied – the power under 156(3) is independent of the police’s work. In State of Bihar v. Saldanha, for example, the Supreme Court noted that a Magistrate can reopen or direct fresh investigation after the police have already submitted a report.

Conversely, the Magistrate should not order investigation as a matter of routine. The Delhi High Court has held that if the allegations are minor or the complainant already has evidence, the court need not pass a 156(3) order – the remedy is typically reserved for serious cases where justice requires police assistance. In practice, Magistrates examine whether the complaint is credible and whether an independent inquiry is needed. They may reject 156(3) petitions that appear frivolous or baseless.

If the Magistrate orders an investigation, the police file a written order on the station diary, register a case, and investigate under Chapter XII of the CrPC as usual. The complainant (applicant) is treated as an informant. If the police again stall or mishandle the investigation, the applicant can approach the Magistrate under 156(3) again for further direction. Thus, 156(3) acts as a check on police at the pre-trial stage.

Key Case Law and Guidelines
Several Supreme Court judgments clarify Section 156(3):

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008): The Court ruled that if the police fail to register a cognizable offence, the correct remedy is to approach the SP (154(3)) and then the Magistrate under 156(3), not to rush to a High Court writ petition. The Court warned against flooding High Courts with writs for FIR registration, and held that a Magistrate can direct registration and investigation.

Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan (1989) and Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (JT 1995): These cases confirm that a Magistrate can order FIR registration under 156(3) and need not examine the complaint on oath since cognizance is not being taken.

Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014): A landmark case on FIRs, the Supreme Court held that registration of any cognizable offence under Section 154 is mandatory. It also clarified that when a Magistrate orders an investigation under 156(3), it must be treated as an order to “register a case… treating the complaint as the first information report and investigate into the same”. In other words, 156(3) cannot be used to bypass the statutory requirement of FIR registration – the police duty to log a FIR is triggered by the Magistrate’s direction.

M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (2020): Reiterated Sakiri Vasu’s principles. The Supreme Court observed that a Magistrate, on a 156(3) application, can direct the FIR to be registered and a proper investigation done. Even if an FIR is already registered, an aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate under 156(3) to ensure the investigation is adequate.
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2021): Emphasized that the Magistrate can change the investigating officer or take other steps to secure a proper probe if needed.
Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2025): Held that not approaching the SP first is “a mere procedural irregularity” and does not invalidate a valid 156(3) order.

These cases underline that Section 156(3) is a procedural tool to help courts supervise police work, not a way to adjudicate guilt.

Case Study: Example Scenario
Suppose Ms. Anjali reports a theft of ₹50,000 from her home. She files a written complaint at the local police station under Section 154 CrPC, but the Station House Officer refuses to register an FIR, saying “lack of evidence.” Anjali then writes to the District SP (Section 154(3)), who asks the S.H.O. to look into it but still no action follows. Feeling aggrieved, Anjali files a Section 156(3) application in the Magistrate’s court. The Magistrate reviews her sworn complaint and notes that the facts prima facie disclose a cognizable offence (theft). The Magistrate then orders “Register a case treating the complaint as an FIR and investigate”.
The police register the FIR (now a formal case) and begin investigation & questioning witnesses, collecting proof, and ultimately filing a charge sheet. If they fail again, Ms. Anjali can come back to the Magistrate for further orders or seek re-investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.

This illustrates how 156(3) serves as a bridge between a citizen’s complaint and the police system, ensuring even reluctant or overworked police officers can be directed to act by the court.

Practical Tips for Complainants
Be factual and clear. In your 156(3) application, clearly narrate dates, names, and how you approached the police and SP. Attach any documents (complaints, letters) you already sent.
Check jurisdiction. File in the Magistrate’s court of the district where the offence occurred.
Use the law. Refer to Section 156(3) explicitly in your petition. Mention relevant IPC sections (e.g. 379 for theft).
Timelines. While the law does not fix a strict wait period, it is sensible to give police a week or two after writing to the SP. If time lapses with no FIR or investigation, that justifies invoking 156(3).
Follow up. Once an order issues, note the case number and follow up with the police. If they again delay, the 156(3) order itself can be enforced or corrected by higher court if needed.
One effective remedy for those who have been wronged is Section 156(3). Citizens can guarantee that cognizable offenses are thoroughly investigated even in cases where the initial police response is inadequate by being aware of its scope and taking the appropriate actions. This avenue is provided by the legal system as a safeguard against police inaction as well as a structured method of involving the courts in the supervision of investigations; however, it must be used appropriately and in compliance with the requirements of the law.

BNSS Section 175(3) The New Provision:
With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, Section 156(3) CrPC has been replaced by Section 175(3) BNSS.

Section 175(3) BNSS:
Empowers a Magistrate to direct the police to investigate any cognizable offence.

Requires compliance with preliminary steps before approaching court (similar to 156(3) CrPC).
Maintains the affidavit requirement to prevent frivolous cases.

Similarity:
Both empower Magistrates to order investigation of cognizable offences.
Both require that complainants first approach higher police authorities.

Difference:
BNSS adds more clarity on timeframes for police action before court intervention.
The numbering and structure are updated, but the essence remains almost identical.
Practical Tips for Citizens
Always keep copies and proof of every complaint sent.
Mention specific legal provisions in your application.
Attach all supporting evidence to strengthen your case.
Avoid exaggeration stick to facts.

Conclusion

Section 156(3) CrPC and now its counterpart Section 175(3) BNSS — is a crucial safeguard ensuring that police inaction does not deny justice. Used correctly, it compels investigation and holds law enforcement accountable.

Compiled and Authored by
Md Irshad Ahmad,
Advocate, Supreme Court of India