Introduction

• This case is a landmark judgement on the powers of magistrate to direct investigation under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Facts

• Appellant is the father of a Major in the Indian Army named Ravishankar.
• The Major's body was discovered on 23^rd August 2003, at Mathura Railway Station.
• The Government Railway Police (GRP) in Mathura investigated and concluded in a report on 29^th August 2003, that the death was either an accident or a suicide.
• The Army officials in Mathura conducted two separate inquiries, both reaching the same conclusion that the Major had committed suicide.
• The inquires relied on statements from the deceased Major's servant and an eyewitness.
• However, the appellant, Major Ravishankar's father, claimed that his son was actually murdered and did not commit suicide.
• He alleges that his son discovered widespread corruption in the Mathura Army unit, reported it to superiors and to him, and was killed because of it.
• Dissatisfied with the Court of investigation's finding of suicide, the appellant took the case to the Allahabad High Court through a writ petition, but the court dismissed it.
• The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court through a special leave petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and demanded investigation by special investigating agency.

Issue Involved

• Whether a person can demand that an inquiry be conducted by a special investigating agency of their choice?

Observations

• SC gave observations related to First Information Report (FIR) and investigation.
• SC said that if an individual faces difficulty in getting their First Information Report (FIR) registered at a police station under Section 154 CrPC, they have recourse to approach the Superintendent of Police through a written application under Section 154(3) CrPC.
• If this does not yield satisfactory results, and the FIR is still not registered or lacks proper investigation, the aggrieved party can submit an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the relevant Magistrate.
• The Magistrate, upon receiving such an application, has the authority to order the registration of the FIR and ensure a thorough investigation.
• The SC emphasized that even if an FIR is registered or under investigation, an individual dissatisfied with the process can seek redress from the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
• The Magistrate, endowed with broad powers, can oversee the investigation and issue necessary directives for a proper inquiry.
• Despite the concise wording of Section 156(3), it encompasses extensive powers vested in the Magistrate to guarantee a meticulous investigation, including the authority to order FIR registration and direct an appropriate inquiry.
• The SC cautioned against entertaining Section 482 CrPC petitions if the FIR remains unregistered, advocating for the pursuit of alternative remedies like approaching police officers or the Magistrate.
• While acknowledging that alternative remedies do not categorically bar writ petitions, the Court stressed that interference by the HC should be avoided unless necessary.
• Additionally, the SC cautioned against indiscriminate use of its and HCs' powers to order CBI investigations, reserving such intervention for rare and exceptional cases to prevent overwhelming the CBI with an unmanageable caseload.

Conclusion

• After emphasizing remedies for FIR and Complaint under CrPC the SC dismissed the appeal of appellant.

Note

• Section 154 (1) of CrPC:
  • Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer-in-charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.
  • A copy of the information as recorded under sub-section (1) shall be given forthwith, free of cost, to the informant.
• Section 154 (3) of CrPC:
  • Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer-in-charge of a police station to record the information referred to in subsection (1) may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Code, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer-in-charge of the police station in relation to that offence.
• Section 156(3) of CrPC:
  • Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above mentioned.
• Section 36 of CrPC:
  • According to Section 36 of CrPC, police officers who are superior in rank to other officers in charge of a police station might exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officers within the limits of their station.
• Section 482 of CrPC:
  • Nothing in this Code will be deemed to restriction or have an effect on the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be mandatory to give effect to any order beneath this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.