Procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry
Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with procedure for investigation preliminary inquiry. If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence up The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State
Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender;
Provided that-
(a) when information as to the commission of any such offence is given against any person by name and the case is not of a serious nature, the officer in charge of a police station need not proceed in person or depute a subordinate officer to make an investigation on the spot ;
(b) if it appears to the officer in charge of a police station that there is no sufficient ground for entering on an investigation, he shall not investigate the case.
(2) In each of the cases mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) of the proviso to sub-section (1), the officer in charge of the police station shall state in his report his reasons for not fully complying with the requirements of that sub-section, and, in the case mentioned in clause (b) of the said proviso, the officer shall also forthwith notify to the informant, if any, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the fact that he will not investigate the case or cause it to be investigated.
Section 157, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 176 Procedure for investigation Close, with changes 78%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Chirag M. Pathak vs Dollyben Kantilal Patel
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When multiple FIRs are registered against the same accused persons in relation to different entities (such as different cooperative societies), mere involvement of common accused persons and some overlapping allegations do not justify quashing FIRs at the investigative stage based on mechanical application of the 'identical allegations' test. Each FIR must be evaluated on the distinct factual matrix of the entity it concerns. The High Court cannot conduct detailed factual examination like an appellate court at the investigation stage; it can only quash FIRs in exceptional cases of sheer absurdity or complete lack of prima facie cognizable case. If a prima facie cognizable case is disclosed in the FIR, the Court must allow investigation to proceed to completion, after which charge-sheets can be filed and cases can be consolidated for trial if appropriate. The distinction in facts—such as different entities, different members, different properties, different buyers, different dates, different amounts, and different persons involved in alleged crimes—are sufficient to constitute separate FIRs even when common accused are involved.
On this section: Condition precedent for commencement of investigation; cited to establish that police have conditioned right to investigate when FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offence, and Court cannot stop investigation once this condition is satisfied.
-
Priyanka Srivastava vs State of U. P.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving Section 156(3) CrPC applications, particularly in commercial disputes and debt recovery matters where statutory alternative remedies exist under special statutes like SARFAESI Act and Recovery of Debts due to Banks Act, a Magistrate must exercise strict judicial application of mind before ordering investigation. The Magistrate must: (1) Consider allegations in their entirety and nature, (2) Evaluate whether allegations remotely disclose cognizable offence, (3) Assess whether forwarding to police is conducive to justice, (4) Note dates of incidents and any abnormal delays in reporting, (5) Conduct preliminary enquiry in commercial dispute categories to verify credibility, (6) Consider legislative protections afforded to secured creditors under special acts like Section 32 SARFAESI Act, (7) Be vigilant against abuse of Section 156(3) as tool for harassment and extracting settlements. Mere mechanical order 'as per application' without stated reasons is erroneous. Applications under Section 156(3) should be supported by sworn affidavit from applicant, making applicant accountable for false allegations under Section 191 IPC. FIR registration, while mandatory under Section 154 upon cognizable offence information, does not mandate investigation if preliminary enquiry reveals lack of credibility. Criminal proceedings cannot be used to pressure financial institutions into favorable settlements in debt disputes where statutory forums (DRT/DRAT) exist for resolution.
On this section: Police investigation initiation requirement; Court clarified higher threshold of 'reason to suspect' applies here compared to Section 154 requirement
-
Sushila Devi vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Once a charge-sheet is filed after completion of investigation by the investigating agency in the competent court, the process of monitoring by the Supreme Court for the purpose of ensuring the investigating agency's proper performance comes to an end. Thereafter, all matters relating to the trial of the accused, including matters falling within the scope of Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, shall be dealt with exclusively by the competent trial court. The Supreme Court shall not continue to monitor the trial phase, as the Constitution envisages an independent and impartial tribunal (the trial court) for dispute resolution, and judicial monitoring of the trial would constitute an improper interference with the trial court's inherent jurisdiction and discretionary authority. The remedy for any error committed by the trial court lies in appeal or judicial review, not in continued Supreme Court intervention.
On this section: Investigation records and procedures
-
State Rep. by Insepctor of Police, Chennai vs N. S. Gnaneswaran
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The procedural requirement under Section 154(2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 to issue a copy of the First Information Report to the informant is merely a directory provision and not a mandatory requirement. Non-compliance with this directory provision does not vitiate the registration of an FIR or the subsequent investigation, provided that: (1) the information recorded discloses the commission of a cognizable offence; (2) the party seeking to challenge the FIR fails to demonstrate any actual prejudice or injustice caused by the procedural lapse; and (3) the court examining the validity of the FIR must apply the doctrine of prejudice by looking to the substance of the matter rather than focusing on technical procedural violations. Therefore, an FIR registered on the basis of recorded information revealing a cognizable offence is valid and investigation may proceed despite failure to strictly comply with the procedural requirement of issuing a copy to the informant.
On this section: Procedure for investigation by police; Court clarified that vague or unauthenticated information cannot form basis for investigation under this section
-
State of Maharashtra vs Sarabgdharsingh Shivdassing Chavan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Chief Minister of a State cannot lawfully issue instructions to police authorities to give special treatment in the registration of criminal cases to any individual or family, regardless of their political status, because such interference violates the mandatory statutory obligation of police to register cognizable offences under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code and breaches the constitutional guarantee of equality before law under Article 14 of the Constitution. Any such executive direction is unconstitutional, constitutes an abuse of power, and subverts the rule of law, which is a vital component of the constitutional framework ensuring equal protection and access to justice for all citizens.
On this section: Applied to note that discretion available to police (to depute subordinate officer or refuse investigation) is limited to cases not of serious nature or lacking sufficient ground, and cannot be exercised on executive political direction
-
Mohammad Shakir vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In prosecution under Section 149 IPC for constructive liability arising from membership in unlawful assembly, proof of overt act by each individual member is not necessary. Mere presence of the accused in an assembly of five or more persons with knowledge of the common unlawful object, and behavior consistent with furtherance of that object (such as surrounding the victim, preventing rescue, possessing weapons, and coordinated departure), is sufficient to establish liability under Section 149 IPC. Further, procedural delays in forwarding FIR to Magistrate do not vitiate the prosecution if the FIR was registered promptly and investigation commenced immediately, and do not affect the credibility of eyewitness testimony or chain of evidence. Additionally, in cases of multiple deaths, the award of death sentence is discretionary and not mandatory; courts may impose life imprisonment based on the circumstances of the case, and mere plurality of victims is not the determinative factor for death sentence.
On this section: Requirement for police to forward FIR report to Magistrate 'forthwith'; Court held that delayed dispatch does not vitiate investigation if FIR registered promptly and investigation commenced immediately
-
Dhara Singh vs State Of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When members of an unlawful assembly armed with lethal weapons gather to take forcible possession of disputed land, they form a common object to dispossess the occupants. While the common object is limited to taking possession, the members of the assembly know that grievous injuries are likely to be caused in prosecution of this object. Therefore, all members are vicariously liable under Section 149 IPC for offences under Sections 326/149, 325/149, 324/149, 323/149, 452, 447, and 148 IPC. However, if one or more members exceed the common object by causing fatal injuries resulting in death, only those members who directly caused the fatal injuries are liable for murder under Section 302 IPC, not all members of the assembly. The delay in sending the FIR to the magistrate, combined with lack of specific role attribution to female members, justifies their acquittal on grounds of abundant caution. The protracted trial duration constitutes a mitigating circumstance in sentencing.
On this section: Requirement to send copy of FIR to magistrate; delay of 43 hours noted and analyzed for impact on case credibility
-
SUDAGAR SINGH vs DIDAR SINGH
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A Magistrate is not bound to direct police investigation under Section 156(3) CrPC merely because cognizable offences are alleged in a complaint. The Magistrate has discretionary power at the pre-cognizance stage to decide whether to direct police investigation or proceed as a complaint case under Sections 200-204 CrPC, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. Further, Section 156(3) CrPC does not cast any duty upon the Magistrate to record reasons while exercising this discretion, and such omission is deliberate and for good reasons.
On this section: Relates to police report filing. Court discussed that police may file report under this section stating they do not intend to investigate.
-
Littu @ Anuj Yadav @ Littu Yadav @ Anuj Kumar vs The State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In rape cases, the testimony of the victim is vital and corroboration is not mandatory if the victim's evidence inspires confidence and is found to be reliable. The victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice but a victim of another person's lust, and her evidence must receive the same weight as that of an injured witness. Substantial compliance with procedural requirements regarding recording of evidence through interpreters and medical examination of accused does not vitiate the prosecution case if the core evidence of rape is established through credible victim testimony supported by medical evidence and identification of accused.
On this section: Information to police and their duties; cited regarding timing of FIR registration
-
K. Guravaiah vs The State of Andhra Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A police officer cannot register a crime or issue an F.I.R in matters relating to Section 145 Cr.P.C (property disputes likely to cause breach of peace) because Section 145 does not contemplate any offence and the proper procedure is for the police officer to place a report before the Executive Magistrate, not to register a crime. Registration of crime in such matters exceeds the powers of police officers under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and is procedurally improper. Such registration can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C as it is outside the realm of law and creates opportunity for abuse of power.
On this section: Procedure for sending report to Magistrate after registration of crime. Court held that this procedure applies only to cognizable or non-cognizable offences, not to Section 145 matters.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… The necessity of doing so was emphasised in the judgment as as the primary purpose is to ensure that truthful version is recorded in the FIR and there is no manipulation or interpolation therein. That is the reason this statutory requirement is provided under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cr.P.C.'). There was grave suspicion qua the FIR. 28. On the touchstone of the principles laid down aforesaid it can hardly be said that the mandate of law under Section 157 Cr.P.C. has not been met. On the intimation of the incident, the …
Questions about Section 157
What have the courts held on Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Chirag M. Pathak vs Dollyben Kantilal Patel (15 Nov 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Condition precedent for commencement of investigation; cited to establish that police have conditioned right to investigate when FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offence, and Court cannot stop investigation once this condition is satisfied. Another 9 judgments on this section are set out below, 6 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2022.
How do I find court cases under Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 157, section 157 CRPC, section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 10 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chirag M. Pathak vs Dollyben Kantilal Patel (15 Nov 2017).
What should I read with Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 156 (Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 176 (Procedure for investigation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 157, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.