Back
2007(8) Supreme 226
Supreme Court of india
A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
Sakiri Vasu — Petitioner
versus
State of U.P. and others — Respondents
Appeal (crl.) 1685 of 2007
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.6404/ 2007)
Decided on : 07-12-2007
2002(5) SCC 521 relied upon 1997 Cr. L.J. 63 relied upon.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154(3) – Power of Magistrate to direct proper investigation - If a person has a grievance that police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C, by an application in writing - Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in sense that either FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering if no proper investigation is held, it is open to aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before Magistrate concerned - If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before Magistrate, Magistrate can direct FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made - Magistrate can also under same provision monitor investigation to ensure a proper investigation – JT 2007(10) SC 585 relied upon. (Para 11)
Doctrine of implied power - It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure proper doing of that thing - When any power is expressly granted by statute, there is impliedly included in grant, even without special mention, every power and every control denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective – Hence where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution. (Para 18)
Criminal procedure code, 1973 – Sections 482,154(3),156(3),200 - Power of magistrate to direct registration of Fir - Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor investigation to ensure that investigation is done properly - High Court should discourage practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police - For this grievance, remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Para 27)
Facts of the case :
Dead body of appellant’s son a Major in Indian army was found on Mathura Railway station herein in the instant case. G.R.P Mathura on investigating matter gave a detail report stating that death was due to an accident or suicide. Army officials at Mathura also held two courts of inquiry and both times submitted report that deceased had committed suicide at railway track at Mathura junction. However appellant alleged that it was a case of murder and not suicide. Appellant’s case that since his son came to know about rampant corruption in Mathura unit of army and had made oral complaints about it to his superiors, he was murdered. Writ petition was filed by Appellant praying for a CBI enquiry which was rejected by High Court.
Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that on Investigation by G.R.P, Mathura and also two Courts of Inquiry it was held by Army authorities that it was a case of suicide. Hence, High Court was justified in rejecting prayer for a CBI inquiry Although High Court has power to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if High Court after considering material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by CBI or by any other similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because party makes some allegation. Material on record not disclosed a prima facie case calling for an investigation by CBI. Mere allegation of appellant that his son was murdered because he had discovered some corruption could not, justify a CBI inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by Army authorities as well as by G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide. It had been stated in impugned order of the High Court that G.R.P. at Mathura had investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.8.2003. It was not clear whether this report was accepted by the Magistrate or not. If the report had been accepted by the Magistrate and no appeal/revision was filed against order of Magistrate accepting police report, then that was end of the matter. However, held that if the Magistrate had not yet passed any order on police report, he may do so in accordance with law.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
An aggrieved person has the right to request proper investigation of an alleged offence but does not have the right to insist that the investigation be conducted by a specific agency of their choice (!) .
If an FIR has been registered and police investigation has commenced or is ongoing, but the aggrieved person feels the investigation is inadequate, they can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for appropriate action, including directing a proper investigation (!) .
The power of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) is broad and includes the authority to direct registration of an FIR, monitor investigation, and ensure proper investigation procedures are followed. This power is implied and necessary for effective investigation, even if not explicitly stated (!) (!) (!) .
The High Court has the authority to order a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry, but such an order should only be made if there is material on record that prima facie discloses a case warranting investigation by the CBI or similar agency. It cannot be ordered routinely or solely based on allegations (!) (!) .
The decision to reject a request for a CBI inquiry can be justified if investigations by competent authorities, such as police or specialized agencies, have already been conducted and concluded that the case is of a particular nature (e.g., suicide). The existence of detailed reports and multiple inquiries supports this (!) (!) .
The remedy for grievances related to FIR registration or investigation inadequacies primarily lies in approaching the Superintendent of Police or other police officers under the relevant statutory provisions, or in filing a criminal complaint before a Magistrate. Judicial review via writ petitions or Section 482 petitions should generally be discouraged unless other remedies are exhausted (!) (!) (!) .
The Court emphasizes that the practice of filing writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in matters of FIR registration or investigation is not favored when alternative remedies are available, such as approaching police authorities or Magistrates under the relevant provisions (!) (!) .
The Court recognizes the doctrine of implied powers, which includes the authority of Magistrates to order investigations, monitor investigations, and take necessary steps to ensure proper investigation, even if not explicitly mentioned in the statute (!) (!) .
The Court underscores that investigations conducted by competent authorities, including courts of inquiry and police reports, are significant and can form the basis for concluding whether a case warrants further investigation by a higher agency like the CBI (!) .
Ultimately, the Court dismissed the appeal when the material on record did not justify ordering a CBI inquiry, reaffirming that investigations by competent authorities and reports indicating a case of suicide do not warrant intervention for a CBI investigation (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice.
JUDGMENT
MARKANDEY KATJU, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9308 of 2007.
3.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4.The son of the appellant was a Major in the Indian Army. His dead body was found on 23.8.2003 at Mathura Railway Station. The G.R.P, Mathura investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.8.2003 stating that the death was due to an accident or suicide.
5.The Army officials at Mathura also held two Courts of Inquiry and both times submitted the report that the deceased Major S. Ravishankar had committed suicide at the railway track at Mathura junction. The Court of Inquiry relied on the statement of the Sahayak (domestic servant) Pradeep Kumar who made a statement that deceased Major Ravishankar never looked cheerful; he used to sit on a chair in the verandah gazing at the roof with blank eyes and deeply involved in some thoughts and used to remain oblivious of the surroundings. The Court of Inquiry also relied on the deposition of the main eye-witness, gangman Roop Singh, who stated that Major Ravishankar was hit by a goods train that came from Delhi.
6.The appellant who is the father of Major Ravishankar alleged that in fact it was a case of murder and not suicide. He alleged that in the Mathura unit of the Army there was rampant corruption about which Major Ravishankar came to know and he made oral complaints about it to his superiors and also to his father. According to the appellant, it was for this reason that his son was murdered.
7.The first Court of Inquiry was held by the Army which gave its report in September, 2003 stating that it was a case of suicide. The appellant was not satisfied with the findings of this Court of Inquiry and hence on 22.4.2004 he made a representation to the then Chief of the Army Staff, General N.C. Vij, as a result of which another Court of Inquiry was held. However, the second Court of Inquiry came to the same conclusion as that of the first inquiry namely, that it was a case of suicide.
8.Aggrieved, a writ petition was filed in the High Court which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
9.The petitioner (appellant herein) prayed in the writ petition that the matter be ordered to be investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (in short CBI). Since his prayer was rejected by the High Court, hence this appeal by way of special leave.
10.It has been held by this Court in CBI & another vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1997 Cr.L.J 63 (vide para 8) that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
11.In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
12.Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr.1, JT 2006(1) SC 10, this Court observed:
“The clear position
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
