FIR For Non-Cognizable Offence Cannot Be Registered Without Getting Appropriate Order From Magistrate U/S. 174 BNSS : Madras HC
The Madras High Court quashed an FIR registered under Section 303(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act and clarified that as per Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, FIR can be registered only after getting an appropriate order from the Magistrate, who is having power to try such a case.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice N.Anand Venkatesh said, “The specific case of prosecution as stated supra is that the value of the stolen property is Rs.3,000/-. Hence, it will come within the scope of non-cognizable offense.”
Advocate G.Karuppasamypandiyan represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate (Crl.Side) B.Thanga Aravindh represented the Respondent.
The petitioner, apprehending arrest at the hands of the respondent police, for the alleged offence under Section 303(2) of BNS Act, approached the High Court seeking anticipatory bail.
It was the case of the Prosecution that the de-facto complainant, who was running a Vulcanizing shop, found that old tyres worth about Rs.3,000 were found missing. On verifying the CCTV footage it was found that the petitioner had taken those tyres.
The Bench explained that the proviso to Subsection 2 of Section 303 of BNS Act provides that in a case of theft, where the value of theft property is less than Rs.5,000/- and person is convicted for the first time, the punishment that is provided is community service. For the value of property less than Rs.5,000, it is non-cognizable and bailable.
“If that is so, as per Section 174 of BNSS Act (hereinafter referred to as 'New Procedure Code') the FIR can be registered only after getting an appropriate order from the learned Magistrate, who is having power to try such a case. In the absence of the same, the very registration of FIR is illegal”, the Bench said.
Allowing the Criminal Original Petition, the Bench held, “Technically speaking, this anticipatory bail petition is not maintainable, since the offence is bailable. However, this Court by exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is inclined to interfere with the FIR, since the very registration of FIR for a non-cognizable offence, without getting appropriate orders of learned Magistrate is illegal.”
The Bench, thus quashed the FIR on the file of the respondent Police.
Cause Title: Jebaraj @ Jeyaraj v. The State of Tamil Nadu [Case No. CRL OP(MD). No.19623 of 2024]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate G. Karuppasamypandiyan
Respondent: Government Advocate (Crl.Side) B.Thanga Aravindh
