Back
(SUPREME COURT)
A.K. Mathur and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.
Criminal Appeal No. 1685 of 2007: against the judgment passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.
9308 of 2007; Decided on 7.12.2007.*
[Paras 11, 13,26 & 30
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 156 (3) and 156 (1) -- investigation as mentioned above in S. 156 (3) -- obviously refer to investigation under S. 156 (1). [Para 14
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 156 (3) -- provides for a check by Magistrate on police performing its duties under Chapter XII. [Para 15
(4) Practice (Criminal) -- aggrieved person can only claim that offence be investigated properly -- he has no right to claim investigation by any particular agency of his choice. 1997 Cri LJ 63 relied on. [Para 10
(5) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 156 (3) -- to order investigation, Magistrate does not have to examine complainant on oath because he is not taking cognizance -- even if Magistrate does not order registration of FIR while directing investigation, it is the duty of officer-in-charge to register. FIR. JT 2006 (1) SC 10 and JT 2007 (10) SC 585 relied on. [Para 12
(6) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 156 (3) and 173 (8) -- power of Magistrate -- is independent -- does not affect power of investigating officer to further investigate even after submission of report u/s 173 (8) -- Magistrate can order re-opening of investigation even after police submits final report. AIR 1980 SC 326 relied on. (2003) 6 SCC 195 explained. [Paras 16 & 29
(7) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 156 (3) -- though briefly worded is very wide -- includes all incidental powers necessary for ensuring proper investigation. AIR 1969 SC 430, AIR 1991 SC 696, AIR 1996 SC 646, (1996) 11 SCC 23, AIR 1996 SC 3527, (2003) 2 SCC 412 and AIR 1986 SC 984 relied on. [Paras 17 & 24
(8) Interpretation of Statutes -- doctrine of implied power -- power expressly granted by statute -- impliedly includes every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective -- where jurisdiction is conferred, power of doing all acts or employing all means essentially necessary for its execution is impliedly granted. AIR 1969 SC 430, AIR 1991 SC 696, AIR 1996 SC 646, (1996) 11 SCC 23. AIR 1996 SC 3527, (2003) 2 SCC 412 and AIR 1986 SC 984 relied on. [Para 18
(9) Interpretation of Statutes -- what is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein [Para 20
(10) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss. 482, 154, 154 (3), 156 (3), 36 and 200 -- Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- nond`registration of FIR and for proper investigation not being done -- High Court should ordinarily refuse to interfere in writ petition or u/s 482 CrPC -- petitioner should be relegated to alternate remedy u/s S. 154 (3), 156 (3), 36 or 200, CrPC. [Paras 25, 26 & 27
(11) Constitution of India -- Arts. 136 and 226 -- Supreme Court and High Court have power to order investigation by CBI -- however, this should be done only in rare and exceptional cases. (2002) 5 SCC 21 relied on. [Para 31
(12) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- finding of suicide recorded in investigation by GRP and two Courts of Inquiry held by Army authorities -- CBI inquiry not justified on mere allegation of murder due to discovery of corruption -- High Court justified in rejecting prayer for CBI inquiry. (2002) 5 SCC 521 relied on. [Paras 32 & 34
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk156 ¼3½] 36] 200 rFkk 154 ¼3½ && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ dk vjftLVªhdj.k && /kkjk 36 eas funsZf‘kr iqfyl vf/kdkjh vFkok iqfyl v/kh{kd ds ikl /kkjk 154¼3½ ds v/khy fyf[kr esa tkuk pkfg, && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ rc Hkh jftLVMZ ugha dh tkrh gS vFkok mfpr vUos"k.k ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS && /kkjk 200 dsa v/khu vkijkf/kd ifjokn Hkh Qkby fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼2001½ 3 ,l lh lh 333 rFkk , vkb vkj 1961 ,l lh 1117 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 11] 13] 26 ,oa 30½ ¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ rFkk 156 ¼1½ && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ esa ^iwoksZDr izdkj dk vUos"k.k* && Li"V :i ls /kkjk 156 ¼1½ ds v/khu vUos"k.k dks funsf‘kr djrk gSA ¼iSjk 14½ ¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ v/;k; 12 ds v/khu iqfyl }kjk vius drZO;ksa ds ikyu ij eftLVªsV }kjk tk¡p iM+rky ds fy, miac/k djrk gSA ¼iSjk 15½ ¼4½ izFkk ¼nkafMd½ && O;fFkr O;fDr dsoy og nkok dj ldrk gS fd vijk/k dk vUos"k.k mfpr :i ls fd;k tk;s && mls viuh ilan ds fdlh fof‘k"V vfHkdj.k ls tk¡p djkus dk nkok djus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 1997 fdz- ykW t 63 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼5½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ && vUos"k.k dk vkns‘k nsus ij] eftLVªsV dks ifjoknh dh ‘kiFk ij ijh{kk ugha djuh gS D;ksafd og laKku ugha ys jgk gS && vUos"k.k funsf‘kr djrs le; Hkys&gh eftLVªsV izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ dks jftLVkj djus dk vkns‘k ugha nsrk gS] izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ jftLVkj djuk Hkkjlk/kd vf/kdkjh dk drZO; gSA ts Vh 2006 ¼1½ ,l lh 10 rFkk ts Vh 2007 ¼10½ ,l lh 585 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 12½ ¼6½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ rFkk 173 ¼8½ && eftLVªsV dh ‘kfDr & Lora= gS && /kkjk 173 ¼8½ ds v/khu fjiksVZ izLrqr djus ds i‘pkr~ Hkh vkxs vkSj vUos"k.k djus dh vUos"k.k vf/kdkjh dh ‘kfDr dks izHkkfor ugha djrh gS && iqfyl }kjk vafre fjiksVZ izLrqr djus ds i‘pkr~ Hkh eftLVªsV vUos"k.k dks iqu% [kksyus dk vkns‘k ns ldrk gSA , vkb vkj 198 ,l lh 326 voyafcrA ¼2003½ 6 ,l lh lh 195 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 29½ ¼7½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 156 ¼3½ && ;|fi la{ksi esa O;Dr gS] cgqr foLr`r gS && mfpr vUOks"k.k lqfuf‘pr djus ds fy, vko‘;d leLr vkuq‘kafxrd ‘kfDr;ksa dks lfEefyr djrh gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 430] , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 696] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh lh 412] , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 984 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 17 ,oa 24½ ¼8½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && foof{kr ‘kfDr dk fl)kUr && ‘kfDr vfHkO;Dr :i ls dkuwu }kjk iznku dh xbZ gS && foof{kr :i ls izR;sd ‘kfDr vkSj izR;sd fu;a=.k lfEefyr gS ftldk badkj fd;k tkuk Lor% iznku fd, tkus dh vizHkkoh dj nsxk && tgk¡ vf/kdkfjrk iznRr gS] leLr dk;Z djus dh ‘kfDr vFkok blds fu"iknu ds fy, vfuok;Z :i ls vko‘;d leLr lk/ku fu;ksftr djus ds fy, foof{kr :i ls iznku dh xbZ gSA , vkb vkj 1969 ,l lh 430] , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 696] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 646] ¼1996½ 11 ,l lh lh 23] , vkb vkj 1996 ,l lh 3527] ¼2003½ 2 ,l lh lh 412 rFkk , vkb vkj 1986 ,l lh 984 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 18½ ¼9½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && vko‘;d :i ls tks fof{kr og dkuwu dk ,slk vf/kdka‘k Hkkx gS ekuks ;g fofufnZ"V :i ls mlesa fyf[kr gksA ¼iSjk 20½ ¼10½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 482] 154] 154 ¼3½] 36 rFkk 200 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ dk vjftLVªhdj.k rFkk@vFkok mfpr vUos"k.k ugah fd;k tkuk && mPp U;k;ky; dks lkekU;r% fjV ;kfpdk eas vFkok naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 482 ds v/khu gLr{ksi djus ls badkj dj nsuk pkfg, && ;kph dks naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 154 ¼3½] 36 vFkok 200 ds v/khu vkuqdfYid mipkj ds fy, funsZf‘kr djuk pkfg,A ¼iSjk 25] 26 ,oa 27½ ¼11½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 136 rFkk 226 && mPpre U;k;ky; rFkk mPp U;k;ky; dks dasnzh; tk¡p C;wjks ls vaos{k.k djkus dk vkns‘k nsus dh ‘kfDr gS && rFkkfi] ;g dsoy fojy rFkk vkiokfnd ekeyksa es dh tkuk pkfg,A ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 521 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 31½ ¼12½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 226 && vkRegR;k dk fu"d"kZ th vkj ih rFkk lsuk izkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk dh xbZ tk¡p U;k;ky;ksa }kjk vUos"k.k esa vfHkfyf[kr fd;k x;k && Hkz"Vkpkj dk irk yx tkus ds dkj.k ek= gR;k dk vfHkdFku] dsanzh; tk¡p C;wjks ls tk¡p djkuk U;k;ksfpr ugha gS && dsanzh; tk¡p C;wjks ls tk¡p ds fy, izkFkZuk dks mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ukeatwj djuk U;k;ksfpr gSA ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 521 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 32 ,oa 34½
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 Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 9308 of 2007.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused 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) Pradeed 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 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 and another v. Rajesh Gandhi and another [1997 CriLJ 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 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under section 154 (3) CrPC 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) CrPC 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 and another [JT 2006 (1) SC 10], this Cour
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
