Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, what is the distinction between the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and under Section 202?

The two operate at different stages: Section 156(3) is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage as a peremptory reminder to the police to exercise their plenary powers of investigation under Section 156(1), while Section 202 operates at the post-cognizance stage, once the Magistrate is in seisin of a complaint under Chapter XV, to decide whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Sections 154, 156(3), 190, 202, 482 — quashing of FIR — res judicata in criminal proceedings — res judicata — rejection of Section 156(3) application not a bar to subsequent FIR — Held: An order under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC is confined to directing or declining to direct investigation and involves no adjudication on the merits; being a threshold order, its rejection cannot attract res judicata so as to bar a subsequent FIR founded on the same or substantially similar allegations, and the Police's independent statutory duty under Section 154 continues unaffected. (¶38-39, 42-43) Section 156(3) is pre-cognizance, Section 202 is post-cognizance — Held further: The jurisdiction under Section 156(3) is exercisable at the pre-cognizance stage as a direction to the police to investigate, while Section 202 operates at the post-cognizance stage to assist the Magistrate in proceedings already instituted upon a complaint. (¶27, 29) res judicata in criminal proceedings — decisive consideration is finality of the earlier adjudication — Held further: Res judicata applies in criminal proceedings in principle, but only where the earlier proceeding culminated in a final adjudication on the merits; an order at the threshold, without adjudication on the merits, does not attract the doctrine. (¶34-37) Section 482 — face-value test — Held further: At the stage of quashing an FIR under Section 482, the Court is concerned only with whether the allegations, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence, and does not examine the correctness or reliability of the material relied upon by either side. (¶47-48)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of PRAMOD KUMAR SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India