9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (12) TMI 485 - SC - Indian LawsWrit Petition Seeking investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) - Powers of Magistrate u/s 156(3) CrPC - Remedies against Grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR u/s 154 CrPC - Alternative remedy to a writ petition - Son of the appellant was a Major in the Indian Army - His dead body was found at Mathura Railway Station - G.R.P, Mathura investigated the matter and gave a detailed report, stating that the death was due to an accident or suicide - Army officials also held two Courts of Inquiry and both times submitted the report that the deceased had committed suicide. HELD THAT - It has been held by this Court in CBI another vs. Rajesh Gandhi and another 1996 (10) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another, 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. 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. 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. 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. Thus, appeal stands dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Investigation of the death of Major Ravishankar. 2. Request for CBI investigation. 3. Legal recourse for unsatisfied investigation outcomes. 4. Powers of Magistrates under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 5. High Court's role in directing investigations. Detailed Analysis: 1. Investigation of the Death of Major Ravishankar: The case revolves around the death of Major Ravishankar, whose body was found at Mathura Railway Station. The initial investigation by the Government Railway Police (G.R.P.), Mathura, concluded it was an accident or suicide. Two Courts of Inquiry by the Army also determined it was a suicide, relying on statements from witnesses like the Sahayak and a gangman. 2. Request for CBI Investigation: The appellant, Major Ravishankar's father, alleged it was a murder due to his son's knowledge of corruption within the Army unit at Mathura. Dissatisfied with the Army's and G.R.P.'s conclusions, he sought a CBI investigation, which was denied by the High Court, leading to the present appeal. 3. Legal Recourse for Unsatisfied Investigation Outcomes: The Supreme Court emphasized that an aggrieved person can claim proper investigation but cannot insist on a specific agency. If a police station fails to register an FIR, the individual can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. If still unsatisfied, they can file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before a Magistrate, who can direct the registration of an FIR and ensure proper investigation. 4. Powers of Magistrates under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.: The Court elaborated on the wide powers of Magistrates under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., including ordering the registration of an FIR and ensuring proper investigation. These powers are implied to ensure the effective execution of the statute. The Magistrate can direct the police to conduct a proper investigation and monitor it, although they cannot investigate themselves. 5. High Court's Role in Directing Investigations: The Supreme Court advised against the practice of filing writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for grievances related to FIR registration or investigation quality. Instead, individuals should utilize remedies under Sections 154(3), 36, and 156(3) Cr.P.C., or file a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The High Court should not interfere unless there is no alternative remedy. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, stating that the material on record did not justify a CBI inquiry. The investigations by the G.R.P. and Army inquiries concluded it was a suicide, and mere allegations of murder due to corruption were insufficient for a CBI probe. The appeal was dismissed, and the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all High Courts. Additional Observations: - The Supreme Court reiterated that the Magistrate has the authority to order proper investigations and monitor them under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. - The Court highlighted the importance of utilizing alternative remedies before approaching the High Court. - The judgment emphasized the doctrine of implied powers, allowing Magistrates to take necessary steps to ensure proper investigations. This comprehensive summary outlines the key issues and the Court's detailed reasoning, maintaining the original legal terminology and significant phrases.
|
