Section 145 — Review of non-prosecution orders
Statutory text (Thai original)
ในกรณีที่มีคำสั่งไม่ฟ้อง และคำสั่งนั้นไม่ใช่ของอธิบดีกรมอัยการ ถ้าในนครหลวงกรุงเทพธนบุรี ให้รีบส่งสำนวนการสอบสวนพร้อมกับคำสั่งไปเสนออธิบดีกรมตำรวจ รองอธิบดีกรมตำรวจ หรือผู้ช่วยอธิบดีกรมตำรวจ ถ้าในจังหวัดอื่นให้รีบส่งสำเนาการสอบสวนพร้อมกับคำสั่งไปเสนอผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัด แต่ทั้งนี้มิได้ตัดอำนาจพนักงานอัยการที่จะจัดการอย่างใดแก่ผู้ต้องหาดังบัญญัติไว้ในมาตรา ๑๔๓ในกรณีที่อธิบดีกรมตำรวจ รองอธิบดีกรมตำรวจหรือผู้ช่วยอธิบดีกรมตำรวจในนครหลวงกรุงเทพธนบุรี หรือผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัดในจังหวัดอื่นแย้งคำสั่งของพนักงานอัยการ ให้ส่งสำนวนพร้อมกับความเห็นที่แย้งกันไปยังอธิบดีกรมอัยการเพื่อชี้ขาด แต่ถ้าคดีจะขาดอายุความหรือมีเหตุอย่างอื่นอันจำเป็นจะต้องรีบฟ้องก็ให้ฟ้องคดีนั้นตามความเห็นของอธิบดีกรมตำรวจ รองอธิบดีกรมตำรวจ ผู้ช่วยอธิบดีกรมตำรวจ หรือผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัดไปก่อนบทบัญญัติในมาตรานี้ให้นำมาบังคับในการที่พนักงานอัยการจะอุทธรณ์ฎีกา หรือถอนฟ้อง ถอนอุทธรณ์และถอนฎีกาโดยอนุโลม
English translation
In a case where there is a non-prosecution order and that order is not that of the Director-General of the Public Prosecution Department: if in the Bangkok-Thonburi metropolis, the investigation file together with the order shall promptly be submitted to the Director-General, Deputy Director-General, or Assistant Director-General of the Police Department; if in other provinces, a copy of the investigation together with the order shall promptly be submitted to the Provincial Governor. This, however, does not preclude the power of the public prosecutor to take any action against the accused as provided in section 143.
In the case where the Director-General, Deputy Director-General, or Assistant Director-General of the Police Department in the Bangkok-Thonburi metropolis, or the Provincial Governor in other provinces, disagrees with the order of the public prosecutor, the file together with the conflicting opinions shall be sent to the Director-General of the Public Prosecution Department for a decision. But if the case would become time-barred, or there is another necessary cause requiring prompt prosecution, the case shall be prosecuted first in accordance with the opinion of the Director-General, Deputy Director-General, Assistant Director-General of the Police Department, or the Provincial Governor.
The provisions of this section shall apply mutatis mutandis where the public prosecutor is to appeal, further appeal, or withdraw a prosecution, appeal, or further appeal.
This English translation is provided for reference only and has not yet been firm-verified — always rely on the Thai original.
Firm annotation
This section builds a check on prosecutorial non-prosecution by requiring review outside the prosecution service, historically by senior Police Department officials or the Provincial Governor. A true conflict is resolved by the Director-General of the Public Prosecution Department, with a time-bar exception allowing immediate prosecution. It uses the older institutional titles; for police-handled investigations the review chain was modernized by section 145/1, which routes review through the Commissioner-General of the Royal Thai Police and the Attorney-General. The final paragraph extends the same check to appeal and withdrawal decisions.
Why this matters in practice
For an injured person, this section is the safeguard that a non-prosecution order can be reviewed and potentially reversed before it becomes final, so it is not automatically the end of the road. For an accused, it means a favourable non-prosecution decision can still be challenged internally. Watch the parallel modern provision, section 145/1, which now governs the review chain for police-handled investigations.
Supreme Court decisions interpreting this section
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 5793/2554 (2011)
Where the prosecutor decides not to appeal a dismissal, the file and order must go through the review chain under section 145, a lawful process that reasonably takes time.
Because the case was dismissed, a decision by the prosecutor not to appeal required sending the file and order to the national police commander, and, if he disagreed, on to the Attorney-General under section 145, a process that reasonably takes time and supported the prosecutor's request to extend the appeal period.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 8481/2544 (2001)
An investigator's mere opinion not to proceed is not yet a final non-prosecution order under sections 145 and 146, so the bar in section 147 does not apply.
Although the Crime Suppression Division inquiry officers had once opined against prosecuting the defendants, that opinion was not yet a final non-prosecution order as prescribed in sections 145 and 146, so it did not fall under section 147's bar on re-investigating the same matter, and prosecuting the fourth defendant was lawful.
-
Supreme Court Judgment No. 1739/2530 (1987)
A prosecutor's discretionary decision not to appeal, exercised under the authority in section 145, is not a tort against the injured person.
The prosecutors' choice not to appeal a Court of First Instance judgment in a case where the plaintiff was the injured person was an exercise of the discretionary authority given by section 145 and was not a tort; there was also no law requiring them to notify the injured person of the judgment or the decision not to appeal.
Curated decisions with case numbers verified against the Supreme Court database. English renderings are the firm's editorial translation for study.
Frequently asked questions
Is a prosecutor's decision not to prosecute final?
Not immediately. Under section 145 the non-prosecution order is submitted for review by a senior police official or the Provincial Governor, and a genuine disagreement is decided by the Director-General of the Public Prosecution Department.
Does this review apply to appeals too?
Yes. The final paragraph of section 145 applies the same review mechanism where the prosecutor is to appeal, further appeal, or withdraw a prosecution, appeal, or further appeal.