Complaints u/s 156(3) & 200 CrPC धारा 175 BNSS / 156(3) CrPC — Magistrate के सामने शिकायत

Use S.175(3) BNSS (formerly S.156(3) CrPC) when: police have refused to register your FIR or have registered it but are not investigating properly. The Magistrate directs police to register/investigate — and police then conduct the investigation and file a chargesheet. Use S.223 BNSS (formerly S.200 CrPC) when: you want the Magistrate to directly conduct the trial without waiting for police investigation. Both can be filed simultaneously. Often practitioners file S.175(3) first — if police still don't act, S.223 follows.

In Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, the Constitution Bench held that: (1) Police are mandatorily required to register an FIR upon receipt of information disclosing a cognisable offence — no preliminary enquiry is permissible; (2) In cases of non-cognisable offences or cases where the information does not clearly disclose a cognisable offence — a preliminary enquiry may be held (limited categories: matrimonial disputes, commercial offences, corruption); (3) If police refuse — SP complaint and Magistrate petition are the remedies. This judgment is the foundation for all S.175(3) / S.156(3) petitions.

Technically no — a person can file a private complaint personally. However, a competent criminal advocate is strongly recommended because: (1) The complaint must disclose the essential ingredients of the offence — a poorly drafted complaint may be dismissed; (2) The complainant is examined on oath — the examination must be comprehensive; (3) If Magistrate sends for enquiry under S.224 BNSS — the advocate guides through the process; (4) Cross-examination of witnesses, legal arguments, and citations require professional expertise. For cases involving serious offences or where the accused has legal representation — appearing without an advocate puts you at a significant disadvantage.

Yes — the accused can file a petition under Section 528 BNSS (formerly S.482 CrPC) before the High Court to quash the complaint or summons / cognisance. The HC can quash if the complaint falls in the Bhajan Lal categories: allegations do not constitute an offence, complaint is filed mala fide, pure civil dispute dressed as criminal, or the Magistrate did not apply mind before taking cognisance. The accused should also first appear before the Magistrate and apply for discharge (S.245 BNSS / S.203 CrPC) at the appropriate stage.

If the Magistrate dismisses the complaint under S.226 BNSS — the complainant can: (1) File a revision petition before the Sessions Court against the dismissal order; (2) File a second complaint on the same facts — permissible if new facts have emerged or the first complaint was dismissed without considering the merits (Pramatha Nath Taluqdar v. Saroj Ranjan 1962 SC); (3) File a writ petition before the HC under Article 226 if the dismissal was illegal or perverse. A simple dismissal for want of sufficient grounds can be corrected by a well-presented revision petition.

Typically, the petition must be filed physically at the Magistrate Court — at the filing counter with the prescribed court fee. However, Delhi courts have e-filing facilities for some matters — check the eCourts portal (services.ecourts.gov.in) for availability. During emergencies or health situations, some courts have allowed email or postal filing temporarily. As a general rule — physical filing with an advocate is the standard practice. The complainant must be available to appear before the Magistrate for examination on oath at the next hearing.

Yes — criminal complaints are subject to limitation. General rule under BNSS: (1) Offence punishable with fine only — 6 months; (2) Offence punishable with imprisonment up to 1 year — 1 year; (3) Offence punishable with 1-3 years — 3 years; (4) Offences punishable with more than 3 years — no fixed limitation. Delay can be condoned by the Magistrate on showing sufficient cause. The Magistrate has discretion to take cognisance of a delayed complaint if the cause for delay is explained satisfactorily. Serious delays without explanation may lead to dismissal.

In a private complaint under S.223 BNSS — the complainant is not just an initiator but also a witness. The complainant must: (1) Appear before the Magistrate on every date — absence can lead to dismissal; (2) Give evidence as a prosecution witness — be examined, cross-examined, and re-examined; (3) Produce witnesses and documentary evidence; (4) Engage with the prosecution process throughout — a private complaint is essentially the complainant conducting the prosecution. Unlike a police chargesheet case (where the state's public prosecutor conducts the case), in a private complaint — the complainant's advocate is the effective prosecutor.

Yes — S.175(3) BNSS / S.156(3) CrPC is not limited to cases where FIR has been refused. It can also be used when: FIR is registered but police are not investigating properly or are deliberately delaying; police have filed a closure report (final report) without adequate investigation; police are favoring the accused by not collecting evidence. The Magistrate can direct reinvestigation or further investigation even after an FIR is registered. The SC in Vinay Tyagi v. Irshad Ali (2013) held that Magistrate can order reinvestigation in appropriate cases.

S.175(3) BNSS petition before the Magistrate is the primary statutory remedy — must be exhausted before filing a writ. A writ petition under Article 226 before the High Court is a constitutional remedy — available when the statutory remedies have failed or are inadequate. The SC in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2008) held that a writ petition should not ordinarily be filed when S.156(3) remedy is available. HC writ is appropriate when: Magistrate has also failed to act; investigation is biased despite court orders; there is a risk of evidence being destroyed. HC writs can direct CBI investigation or order SIT constitution in appropriate cases.