Magistrate Cannot Order FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC After Taking Cognizance on Same Complaint | Parallel Criminal Proceedings Quashed by Punjab & Haryana High Court

Case Name: Sukhdeep Kaur and Another v. State of Punjab and Another

Date of Judgment: 16 July 2026

Citation: CRM-M-35495-2022

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that once a Magistrate has taken cognizance of a private complaint under Section 190 CrPC and has proceeded under Chapter XV by recording preliminary evidence, he cannot subsequently invoke powers under Section 156(3) CrPC on the very same allegations. The power under Section 156(3) CrPC is confined to the pre-cognizance stage, and permitting a second proceeding for registration of an FIR on identical facts amounts to an impermissible parallel criminal process and an abuse of the process of law.

Summary: The petitioners approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Jagraon directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC. The petitioners contended that respondent No. 2 had already filed a private complaint based on the same allegations in 2018. In those proceedings, the Magistrate had taken cognizance, recorded the complainant’s preliminary evidence and the complaint was pending adjudication. Despite this, the complainant filed a fresh application under Section 156(3) CrPC seeking registration of an FIR without disclosing any exceptional circumstances or explaining the necessity for initiating a second criminal proceeding.

The High Court examined the settled legal position governing the scope of Section 156(3) CrPC and reiterated that the provision operates only at the pre-cognizance stage. Relying upon the Constitution Bench decision in Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. Narayana Reddy, along with Madhao v. State of Maharashtra, T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala and Krishna Lal Chawla v. State of U.P., the Court held that once a Magistrate takes cognizance under Section 190 CrPC and proceeds under Chapter XV by recording evidence under Sections 200 or 202 CrPC, he cannot revert to the pre-cognizance stage and direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC.

The Court further observed that allowing successive proceedings arising from identical allegations would expose an accused to parallel criminal prosecutions and would amount to abuse of the criminal justice process. The subsequent application under Section 156(3) CrPC neither disclosed the pendency of the earlier complaint nor explained why registration of an FIR became necessary after cognizance had already been taken. Such suppression of material facts and initiation of parallel proceedings attracted the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC as explained in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and reaffirmed in Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. The impugned order directing registration of the FIR was therefore found to be without jurisdiction.

Decision: The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate directing registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) CrPC, together with the consequential FIR and all proceedings arising therefrom. The Court clarified that the earlier private complaint, in which cognizance had already been taken, would continue to be decided independently in accordance with law.