The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently stated that sending a complaint to the police via WhatsApp can be considered a significant fulfilment of the requirements outlined in Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which pertain to the process of filing a First Information Report (FIR).

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani made this remark during the consideration of a case where a criminal complaint was being challenged. It's important to note that the initial information related to the complaint had been submitted to the police through WhatsApp and email. Subsequently, the complaint was acknowledged by a magistrate, who then directed additional investigation by the police. This decision followed an application made by the complainant under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) before the same magistrate.

The central issue before the High Court revolved around the validity of the criminal complaint initiated through an application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. This hinged on whether the complainant had initially contacted the police by lodging a complaint as per the provisions of Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the CrPC.

Justice Wani has ruled that sending the complaint details to the relevant police officials through WhatsApp and email can be regarded as a significant adherence to the provisions of Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the CrPC. Consequently, the Court has determined that the complainant appears to have met the prerequisites for approaching the magistrate with an application under Section 156 of the CrPC.

In this particular case, the complainant (respondent) had transmitted her complaint by sharing WhatsApp chats with the Station House Officer (SHO) of the local police station on several occasions. Additionally, she had also filed a complaint with similar content before the Senior Superintendent of Police.

In response to the lack of action taken on her previous complaints, the complainant then approached the relevant magistrate by submitting an application under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. In this application, she requested the magistrate to instruct the Station House Officer (SHO) to initiate the necessary actions. Subsequently, a Srinagar court addressed this application by instructing the concerned SHO to carry out a preliminary inquiry into the matter, if it was determined that a cognizable offense had indeed occurred, the court directed the SHO to register a First Information Report (FIR).

The order instructing a preliminary inquiry was contested in the High Court by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the complainant (who was the respondent before the High Court) had not followed the legal prerequisites for filing a police complaint under Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the CrPC. On the other hand, the complainant defended her actions, asserting that she had indeed adhered to the proper procedure by initially reporting her complaint to the police and substantiating it with evidence through WhatsApp chats and emails.

The Court reached the conclusion that the actions taken by the complainant-respondent constituted substantial compliance with the provisions of Sections 154 (1) and 154 (3) of the CrPC. It expressed the opinion that the complainant-respondent had indeed fulfilled the necessary requirements for invoking the provisions of Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. Furthermore, the Court stated that there were no grounds to find fault with the filing of the complaint by the complainant-respondent, its consideration by the Magistrate, and the subsequent orders issued in this regard.

The Court, after considering the arguments and circumstances, decided to reject the petition that challenged the filing of the complaint. In doing so, it emphasized the principle that criminal proceedings should not be obstructed at the initial stages, and the quashing of a complaint or FIR should be a rare and exceptional occurrence. This underscores the importance of allowing due process to unfold and investigations to progress before considering such measures.

Case: Dilshad Sheikh and others V/s Sabha Sheikh CRM(M) 572/2022
CrlM 1586/2022.