Written By: Apoorv Agarwal
The recent decision of the Supreme Court of India in the matter of “Mohan Karthik &Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu &Anr.” bearing SLP (Crl.) No. 18828 of 2025, once again highlights the settled legal position that the power under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) (now 175 (3) of BNSS) cannot be repeatedly invoked after an earlier rejection and closure of proceedings. The judgment serves as an important safeguard against abuse of criminal process and clarifies the distinction between proceedings under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Section 200 Cr.P.C.(now 223 of BNSS).
The matter arose from an appeal challenging the order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras whereby the Magistrate had been permitted to direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the second time. The appellants contended before the Supreme Court that once the earlier application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. had already been dismissed, and even the subsequent closure report filed pursuant to the High Court’s direction for preliminary inquiry had attained finality, the Magistrate could not reopen the issue by again invoking Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
The Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice NongmeikapamKotiswar Singh accepted the contention of the appellants and held that the second invocation of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. amounted to nothing but an indirect review of the earlier order. The Court observed that although there may not be an express statutory bar against filing a second application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the circumstances of the case clearly demonstrated that the complainant was attempting to revive a matter that had already concluded.
The Supreme Court further emphasized that the liberty earlier granted by the High Court was only for the purpose of invoking Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. Instead of adopting that course, the complainant once again sought directions under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for registration of an FIR. The Court termed this as an “oversight” and clarified that the parameters governing Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and Section 200 Cr.P.C. are fundamentally different.
The distinction drawn by the Court is legally significant. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empowers the Magistrate to direct police investigation at the pre-cognizance stage, whereas Section 200 Cr.P.C. deals with a private complaint where the Magistrate proceeds by examining the complainant and witnesses. The two provisions operate in different spheres and cannot be interchangeably invoked to circumvent earlier judicial findings.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside both the impugned order of the Madras High Court dated 07.10.2025 and the Magistrate’s order dated 23.08.2024 directing registration of the FIR. However, balancing the interests of justice, the Court directed that the application filed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be treated as a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., to be proceeded with in accordance with law.
The judgment carries substantial implications for criminal jurisprudence. It discourages repetitive attempts to secure police investigation after earlier failure and reinforces procedural discipline in criminal litigation. At the same time, the Court ensured that the complainant was not left remediless by permitting the matter to continue as a private complaint.
The ruling also reiterates a broader principle that criminal procedure cannot be used as a tool for endless reopening of concluded proceedings. Judicial orders, once passed and acted upon, cannot be indirectly reviewed through repeated applications before subordinate courts. Such practice, if permitted, would undermine the finality of judicial proceedings and encourage misuse of the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, the decision in Mohan Karthik(Supra) is a noteworthy reaffirmation of the limits of Magistrate’s powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The judgment strikes a careful balance between preventing abuse of process and preserving the complainant’s statutory remedies. By drawing a clear line between police investigation and private complaint procedure, the Supreme Court has once again strengthened procedural fairness and judicial consistency in criminal law.
