Posts in Supreme Court of India

Court No. – 47
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. – 23 of 2022

Petitioner :- Satyaprakash
Respondent :- State Of U.P And 6 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohammad Khalid,Pawan Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon’ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon’ble Deepak Verma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents.

The present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to conclude the fair investigation of Case Crime No. 610 of 2021, under Sections 363, 366 I.P.C., P.S. Gunnor, District Sambhal.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police is acting in collusion with the accused persons and as yet neither the accused persons have been arrested nor any charge sheet has been filed against the accused persons.

Admittedly, petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of investigation said to have been conducted against private respondents.

The Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, following its earlier decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, held as follows:

“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.”

The power of the Magistrate to monitor investigation in exercise of his power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has also been recognized in the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal, (2011) 12 SCC 328 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 568, where, in the light of the law laid down in Sakiri Vasu’s case (supra), it has been observed as follows:

“12. It should also be noted that Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a

check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.).”

Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another Vs. S.Janaki and another, 2020 SCC online S.C. 341 affirmed the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and held as under:

“17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.”

In view of the law noticed above, we dispose off this petition with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the power of the Magistrate available under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court as noticed above.

Order Date :- 20.1.2022

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM MADRAS) (D.B.)

T C THANGARAJ; P SUGANTHI & ANR V/S V ENGAMMAL & ORS

Date of Decision: 29 July 2011

Hon’ble Judges: A K Patnaik, R V Raveendran

Eq. Citations: 2011 (12) SCC 328, 2011 AIR(SC) 3010, 2011 (8) Scale 120, 2011 AIR(SCW) 4513, 2011 (5) Supreme 407, 2011 CrLJ 4348, 2011 (3) KerLT 115, 2011 (3) RCR(Cri) 751, 2011 (9) SCR 647, 2011 (3) AICLR 683, 2012 (1) SCC(Cri) 568, 2011 (3) AllCriR 3373, 2011 (108) AllIndCas 134, 2011 (4) JCR 76, 2011 (75) AllCriC 965, 2011 (3) Crimes(SC) 157, 2012 (1) LW(Cri) 120, 2012 (1) CalCriLR 353, 2011 (2) UC 1454, 2011 (50) OCR 124, 2011 (2) SCCriR 1428

Case Type: Criminal Appeal Case No: 1504 of 2011 Subject: Criminal
Head Note:

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Sec 154(3), 156(3), 482 – Constitution of India – Art 226 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sec 34, 409, 420, 471 – complaint power of High Court under Article 226 of Constitution to direct investigation by CBI – High Court held that investigating agency had not done its duty properly and under circumstances, relief claimed by complainant should be granted and accordingly ordered that crime be entrusted to CBI for investigation – such power to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a

party has levelled some allegations against local police – in impugned order, High Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of Constitution and directed CBI to investigate into complaint with a view to protect her personal liberty under Art 21 of Constitution or to enforce her fundamental right guaranteed by Part-III of Constitution – High Court has exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a grievance made by complainant that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan transaction of Rs.3 lakh by three accused persons, was not being investigated properly because one of accused persons is an Inspector of Police – it was not exceptional situations calling for exercise of extra- ordinary power of High Court to direct investigation into complaint by CBI – High Court should have directed Superintendent of Police to entrust investigation to an officer senior in rank to Inspector of Police under Sec 154(3) CrPC and not to CBI – impugned order of High Court quashed and Superintend of Police is directed to entrust investigation of Crime to a police officer senior in rank to accused – appeals allowed.

Acts Referred:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Sec 34, Sec 420, Sec 409, Sec 471 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec 482

Final Decision: Appeal allowed

Advocates: R Anand Padmanabhan, Prthvi Raj B N, Naveen, Pramod Dayal, P P Malhotra, Guru Krishna Kumar, Ranga Ramanujam, Rajiv Nanda, S Siddiqui, A K Sharma, Subramanium Prasad, Anesh Paul, Prasannv, B Krishna Prasad, S Ashok Kumar, Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti, Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, Prakhar Sharma, Rani Jethmalani, S Thananjayan

Judgement Text:-

A K Patnaik, J

[1] Delay condoned in S.L.P. (Crl.) No.1589 of 2008.

[2] Leave granted.

[3] These are two appeals against the order dated 26.10.2007 of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, in Criminal Original Petition No.10987 of 2007 directing that investigation into the case registered as Crime No.14 of 2006 with the District Crime Branch (DCB), Virudunagar, be entrusted to the Central Bureau of Investigation, Chennai (for short `the CBI’).

[4] The facts briefly are that on 04.08.2006 a complaint was submitted by V. Engammal, who has been impleaded as a respondent in both the appeals (hereinafter referred to as `the complainant’), to the Superintendent of Police, Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu. The complainant made following allegations in the complaint: P. Kalaikathiravan, appellant no.2 in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008, who was the then S.I. of Town Police Station, told her and her husband that he was going to do the business of real estate and that they should become partners in the business but they told him that the business will not work and thereafter he asked them to give a loan of Rs.3 lakh and they handed over Rs.3 lakh to his wife P. Suganthi, appellant no.1 in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1589 of 2008. P. Kalaikathiravan then introduced T.C. Thangaraj, the appellant in criminal appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1585 of 2008, and one Nagendran who were doing real estate business. When P. Kalaikathiravan was transferred to Sethur Krishnapuram, the complainant and her husband demanded repayment of Rs.3 lakh, but P. Kalaikathiravan asked them to collect the money from T.C. Thangaraj. T.C. Thangaraj accepted the liability and gave two cheques dated 30.01.2004 and 04.02.2004 each of Rs.50,000/-, but the cheques were returned with remarks from the bank that there were no sufficient funds in the accounts. After P. Kalaikathiravan came back to Virudunagar on promotion as Inspector, her husband went to him many times and demanded money but he refused to pay the same and sent him away. In the complaint, the complainant requested the Superintendent of Police to initiate action against the Inspector, P. Kalaikathiravan, his wife P. Suganthi and T.C. Thangaraj, who had cheated the complainant and her husband. The Superintendent of Police sent the complaint to the Office In- charge of DCB, Police Station Virudunagar, on 04.08.2006 and the complaint was registered as Crime No.14 of 2006 under Sections 409, 420, 471 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short `the IPC’).

[5] When there was no progress in the investigation on the complaint, the complainant

filed Crl. O.P. No.8782 of 2006 under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short `the Cr.P.C.’) before the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, with a prayer to entrust the case to the CBI for proper investigation. The High Court in its order dated 13.04.2007 noticed that the case is against a police officer and the grievance of the complainant was that the police department was not taking interest in pursuing the matter. The High Court, however, found that the matter was before the Judicial Magistrate and disposed of the petition giving liberty to the complainant to appear before the Judicial Magistrate concerned and file, if necessary, a protest petition if the case has been treated as a mistake of fact. The High Court further directed that the Judicial Magistrate shall consider the protest petition of the respondent keeping in mind the seriousness of the allegations made in the complaint as well as in the affidavit filed before the High Court.

[6] Thereafter, the complainant filed Crl. O.P. No.10987 of 2007 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, reiterating her prayer to entrust Crime No.14 of 2006 to the CBI for proper investigation. The High Court in the impugned order dated 16.10.2007 took note of the fact that the complainant had received back the sum of Rs.3 lakh in question and given a receipt dated 05.08.2006 but she had a grievance that her complaint had not been properly investigated and the investigating agency should file a final report in accordance with law. However, the High Court after perusing the entire case diary found that some witnesses have been examined but the investigation had been stopped suddenly on the ground that the complainant had received back the sum of Rs.3 lakh on 05.08.2006. The High Court held in the impugned order that even though the amount in question had been received back by the complainant, the investigating agency ought to have conducted proper investigation and filed a final report in accordance with law, but the investigating agency had failed to do it. The High Court further held that as the accused No.1 was an Inspector of Police, the investigating agency has not done its duty properly and under the circumstances, relief claimed by the complainant should be granted and accordingly ordered that Crime No.14 of 2006 be entrusted to the CBI for investigation.

[7] Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the reasons given by the High Court in the impugned order that the accused No.1 was an Inspector of Police and therefore the investigating agency has not done its duty properly, have not been held to be good reasons for entrusting the investigation to the CBI by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., 2010 3 SCC 571.

[8] Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, cited a decision of two- Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors., 2006 2 SCC 677, in which this Court directed the CBI to register a case and investigate into the complaint of the appellant because the complaint was against the police officer and the Court was of the view that the interest of justice would be better served if the case is registered and investigated by an independent agency like the CBI.

[9] The decision of the two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Kumari v. State (N.C.T. of Delhi) & Ors., 2006 2 SCC 677 will have to be now read in the light of the principles laid down by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., 2010 3 SCC 571. The Constitution Bench has considered at length the power of the High Court to direct investigation by the CBI into a cognizable offence alleged to have been committed within the territorial jurisdiction of a State and while taking the view that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cautioned that the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations. Para 70 of the opinion of the Constitution Bench in State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., 2010 3 SCC 571 is extracted hereinbelow :

“Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with

unsatisfactory investigations.”

[10] It will be clear from the opinion of the Constitution Bench quoted above that the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct investigation by the CBI is to be exercised only sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and an order directing to CBI is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. In the impugned order, the High Court has not exercised its constitutional powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and directed the CBI to investigate into the complaint with a view to protect her personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution or to enforce her fundamental right guaranteed by Part-III of the Constitution. The High Court has exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on a grievance made by the complainant that her complaint that she was cheated in a loan transaction of Rs.3 lakh by the three accused persons, was not being investigated properly because one of the accused persons is an Inspector of Police. In our considered view, this was not one of those exceptional situations calling for exercise of extra-ordinary power of the High Court to direct investigation into the complaint by the CBI. If the High Court found that the investigation was not being completed because P. Kalaikathiravan, an Inspector of Police, was one of the accused persons, the High Court should have directed the Superintendent of Police to entrust the investigation to an officer senior in rank to the Inspector of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. and not to the CBI. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the Police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (see Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors., 2008 2 SCC 409.

[11] For these reasons, we quash the impugned order of the High Court and direct that the Superintend of Police, Virudunagar District, Tamil Nadu, will entrust the investigation of Crime No. 14 of 2006 to a police officer senior in rank to P. Kalaikathiravan. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

Download Judgment below

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM ALLAHABAD) (D.B.)

SAKIRI VASU V/S STATE OF U P

Date of Decision: 07 December 2007

Hon’ble Judges: Ashok Kumar Mathur, Markandey Katju

Eq. Citations: 2008 (2) SCC 409, 2008 AIR(SC) 907, 2007 (13) Scale 693, 2008 AIR(SCW) 309, 2007 (8) Supreme 226, 2007 (13) JT 466, 2008 (2) GLR 1666, 2008 (2) GLH 269, 2008 (3) KCCR 198, 2007 (1) RajLW 136, 2008 (1) RajLW 136, 2008 (1) KerLT 724, 2008 (1) RCR(Cri) 392, 2008 (1) RCR(Civ) 392, 2007 (12) SCR 1100, 2008 (1) AICLR 478, 2008 (1) SCC(Cri) 440, 2008 (1) AllCriR 4, 2008 CrLR 62, 2008 (1) AllLJ 752, 2008 (1) OrissaLR 105, 2008 (62) AllIndCas 236, 2008 RCrD(SC) 406, 2008 (106) CutLT 354, 2008 (3) MPWN 73, 2008 (1) MPHT 429, 2008 (60) AllCriC 689, 2008 (1) CurCriR 70, 2008 (1) JCC 113, 2007 (4) Crimes(SC) 338, 2008 (1) CriCC 1, 2008 (1) ApexCJ 324, 2007 (5) LawHerald(SC) 3910, 2008 (2) MhLJ(Cri) 300, 2008 (2) LW(Cri) 902, 2008 (1) CalCriLR 399, 2008 (1) MadLJ(Cri) 1393, 2008 (39) OCR 287, 2008 ALLSCR 1890, 2008 (1) AD(Cri) 85

Case Type: Criminal Appeal; Special Leave Petition (Crimin Case No: 1685 of 2007; 6404 of 2007
Subject: Criminal
Head Note:

(a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 36,154(3), 200 & 482 – Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 226-Practice and Procedure-Writ petition or petitions under Section 482-Maintainability – Exhaustion of alternative remedy -If there is an

alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.

The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC similarly because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.

(b) Constitution of India, 1950 -Arts. 32, 136 & 226 -Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946-Section 3 -CBI inquiry-Directions for-Power to order investigation by CBI-Though the Magistrate cannot order investigation by CBI but the supreme court or the High Court has power to order investigation by CBI – However, that should be done only in some rare and exceptional case.

No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by CBI but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by CBI. That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them.

Although the High Court has power to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High Court after considering the 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 the party makes some allegation.

(c) Constitution of India, 1950 -Art. 226-CBI inquiry-Directions for -Rejection – Validity-GRP and two courts of inquiry found that it was a case of suicide – Material on record does not a disclose 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 cannot justify CBI inquiry -Rejecting the prayer for a CBI inquiry-Proper.

In the present case, there was an investigation by GRP, Mathura and also two courts of inquiry held by the army authorities and they found that it was a case of suicide. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for a CBI inquiry.

In our opinion, justify a CBI inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the army authorities as well as by GRP at Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide.

(d) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Sections 154 & 156(3)- Criminal trial – Improper investigation -Remedies open to aggrieved person against-Explained.

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, In 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.

Even of an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person an approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order (s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police

has not done its duty of investigation the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring proper investigation and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC, hough briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.- Appeal Dismissed

Acts Referred:

Constitution Of India Art 136, Art 226, Art 32
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Sec 156(3), Sec 482, Sec 154(3), Sec 200, Sec 125, Sec 36, Sec 154
Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 Sec 3

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed Advocates: Dinesh Kumar Garg

Reference Cases: Cases Cited in (+): 651 Cases Referred in (+): 15

Judgement Text:-

Markandeya 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 vs. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. JT 2006(1) SC 10, this Court observed:

“The clear position therefore is that any judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the substance of the information relating to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigating under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.”

[13] The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the

investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

[14] Section 156 (3) states:
“Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an

investigation as abovementioned.”

The words `as abovementioned” obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station.

[15] Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

[16] The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326 (para 19).

[17] In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.

[18] 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 the proper doing of that

thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus 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.

[19] The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford observes in his “Statutory Construction” (3rd edn. page 267):-

“If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission”.

[20] In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.

[21] An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430, this Court held that the income tax appellate tribunal has implied powers to grant stay, although no such power has been expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act.

[22] Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are Union of India vs. Paras Laminates AIR 1991 SC 696, Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd AIR 1996 SC 646 (at p. 656), Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu 1996 (11) SCC 23, J. K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1996 SC 3527, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society 2003 (2) SCC 412 (at p. 432) etc.

[23] In Savitri vs. Govind Singh Rawat AIR 1986 SC 984 this Court held that the power conferred on the Magistrate under Section 125Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to the wife implies the power to grant interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding, otherwise she may starve during this period.

[24] In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although

Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.

[25] We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).

[26] If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

[27] As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the 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 the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the 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.

[28] It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.

[29] In Union of India vs. Prakash P. Hinduja and another 2003 (6) SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).

[30] It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C. if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3) SCC 333 (vide para 11), R. P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC 1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar vs. A.C. Saldanna (supra).

[31] No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another (Supra), but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation by the CBI. That, however should be done only in some rare and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them.

[32] In the present case, there was an investigation by the G.R.P., Mathura and also two Courts of Inquiry held by the Army authorities and they found that it was a case of suicide. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for a CBI inquiry.

[33] In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services U.P. and others vs.

Sahngoo Ram Arya and another 2002 (5) SCC 521 (vide para 6) , this Court observed that although the High Court has power to order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised if the High Court after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by the CBI or by any other similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a matter of routine or merely because the party makes some allegation.

[34] In the present case, we are of the opinion that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI. The mere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered because he had discovered some corruption cannot, in our opinion, justify a CBI inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the Army authorities as well as by the G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it was a case of suicide.

[35] It has been stated in the impugned order of the High Court that the G.R.P. at Mathura had investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on 29.8.2003. It is not clear whether this report was accepted by the Magistrate or not. If the report has been accepted by the Magistrate and no appeal/revision was filed against the order of the learned Magistrate accepting the police report, then that is the end of the matter. However, if the Magistrate has not yet passed any order on the police report, he may do so in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above.

[36] With the above observations, this appeal stands dismissed.

[37] Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Secretary General of this Court to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts, who shall circulate a copy of this Judgment to all the Hon”ble Judges of the High Courts.