The Supreme Court has held that rejection of an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) does not, by itself, prevent the police from subsequently registering an FIR based on the same or substantially similar allegations.
A Bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria clarified that an order under Section 156(3) only concerns whether police investigation should be directed. It does not decide the truth or merits of the allegations against the proposed accused.
The Court consequently dismissed the appeal challenging the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash FIR No. 405/2024.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations that the appellant, Pramod Kumar Shukla, had represented that he could arrange clerk-level government appointments in the Directorate of Education, Prayagraj, in return for money.
The complainant alleged that various amounts were transferred to the appellant in January 2023. He further alleged that no interview took place and that, when repayment was sought, threats were made. The complaint also referred to bank records and an alleged Directorate of Education result.
An earlier application under Section 156(3) CrPC had been rejected by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Prayagraj, on September 11, 2024. The Magistrate had noted that the police report treated the dispute as relating to a land transaction, while the application alleged payment for securing government employment. The revision against that order was also dismissed.
FIR No. 405/2024 was subsequently registered under Sections 406, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504 and 506 IPC. The appellant approached the Allahabad High Court for quashing of the FIR, but the High Court declined to interfere.
Supreme Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court examined the nature of proceedings under Section 156(3) CrPC and held that such an order does not amount to a final adjudication on the allegations.
“Such an order neither entails an adjudication on the merits of the allegations nor determines any right or liability of the proposed accused,” the Court observed.
The Bench also explained that the police have an independent statutory duty under Section 154 CrPC to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence. The rejection of an earlier Section 156(3) application cannot extinguish that duty.
The Court distinguished its decision in Mohan Karthik, noting that the earlier case concerned a second application under Section 156(3), whereas the present matter concerned the legal effect of a subsequent FIR.
Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court further held that, at the stage of considering a petition for quashing, the Court is required to examine whether the allegations in the FIR, taken at face value, disclose a cognizable offence. It cannot undertake a detailed assessment of the reliability or evidentiary value of the competing material.
In the present case, the Court found that the allegations in the FIR, including the alleged payment of money, alleged documents and subsequent threats, disclosed cognizable offences warranting investigation.
It found no error in the Allahabad High Court’s approach and dismissed the appeal.
Case Details:
Case Title: Pramod Kumar Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 3931 of 2026, arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 12908 of 2025
Judge: Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice N.V. Anjaria
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
 and Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) Constables-300x169.webp)
