This article has been written by Shahela. This article seeks to analyse, through the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., the role and power of the police under Section 154 of the CrPC and the power of the Magistrate to oversee the investigation under Section 156 of the CrPC in detail. Further, the article deals with the laws and precedents discussed in this case, along with the doctrines of implied power and updating the construction of statutes. Section 482 of the CrPC is also discussed to analyse the power of the high court to entertain the writ petition and its maintainability.

Introduction

The case of Sakiri vasu v. State of UP and others (2007) is one of the remarkable judgments of the Supreme Court of India. It deals with and discusses the importance of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the CrPC) and the powers of the Judicial Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation of the matter. The provisions of Section 156(3) of the CrPC have an extremely wide scope. During this case, the Supreme Court under Section 482 of the CrPC directed the Magistrate by empowering him under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to instruct the police for the proper investigation and for the registration of an FIR, which was not done in this case previously.

According to Section 154(1) of CrPC, if any information of cognizable offence is given to a police officer orally in the police station, then that police officer is accountable for writing down the information by himself or under his direction by any of his subordinates, which will be signed by himself/herself along with the person who gives the information. After that, the complaint will be forwarded to the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. The SP, upon receiving the complaint in writing, will check the genuinity of the complaint, and if the complaint discloses the attributes of the cognizable offence, then the investigation will be made by himself or the direction for the investigation will be given by him to any of his subordinates in the manner laid down under CrPC. The Judicial Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, is enshrined with the power to look into the cognizable cases where directions for investigation are given by the Magistrate to the police under Section 190 of the CrPC.  

The above-mentioned procedure is available in the CrPC to the person who made the complaint for any cognizable offence for the proper investigation of the matter by the police as directed by the Judicial Magistrate. First, there’s the filing of the complaint in writing, as made orally by the complainant. If there’s any failure to register the FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC, then the complainant can, through written application, reach out to the SP under Section 154(3) of the CrPC. And if SP also does not register the complaint, then the complainant under Section 156(3) of CrPC, can reach out to the Magistrate to direct the police for the registration of the FIR and also for a proper investigation of the case. 

Details of Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

• Case Name: Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
• Case No: Appeal (Crl.) 1685 of 2007
• Equivalent Citations: 2007 SCC OnLine SC 1488 or (2008) 2 SCC 409
• Acts involved: Constitution of India, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
• Important provisions: Articles 21, 32, 136, and 226 of the Indian Constitution; Sections 154 read with Sections 36, 156(3), 200, and 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973; and Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946.
• Court: Supreme Court
• Bench: 2 judges bench; A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju, JJ.
• Petitioners: Sakiri Vasu
• Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
• Judgement Date: 07/12/2007

Powers of Judicial Magistrate to vigil the investigation

The Judicial Magistrate, under Section 156 of the CrPC, has the power to direct the police for a proper investigation. This power to vigil the investigation by the Magistrate has some stages, which can be understood below:

1. The first stage is to direct the police for investigation immediately after the filing of the FIR.
2. The second stage is where the person gets arrested in the process of investigation. He or she shall be required to be presented by the police within 24 hours to the magistrate to determine the validity of the arrest and to further decide the category of arrest, judicial or police.
3. The third stage is the intervention of the judicial magistrate for recording statements under Section 164 of the CrPC, where a person makes a confession before the magistrate as well as for ID verification, identification and seeking applications.
4. The fourth stage is monitoring the investigation.
5. The fifth stage is a direction for further investigation under Section 173 of the CrPC after the filing of the FIR.

Facts of Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

This appeal was made by the appellant aggrieved against the order and judgement of the Allahabad High Court passed on 13.07.2003, in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9308 of 2007. The appellant has a son named S. Ravishankar, who was a Major in the Indian Army. His dead body was found at the Mathura Railway Station on 23.08.2003. The Govt. Railway Police (G.R.P.), Mathura, investigated the case of the deceased and submitted a detailed report on 29.08.2003 concluding it was either an accident or suicide. 

During the inquiry, the court relied on the statements of the Sahayak (Domestic Servant) and the main eye-witness, Ram Swaroop. Sahayak (Domestic Servant) made a statement that Major S. Ravishankar was never a cheerful person, he used to sit on the verandah on a chair and always look at the ceiling with aloof, blank eyes. He was always in some kind of deep thought and was unaware of his surroundings. The eyewitness, Gangman Ram Swaroop, stated that Major Ravishankar was hit by the goods train coming from Delhi. But the father of the deceased was suspicious of his son’s death and claimed it was murder instead of suicide. He stated that his son told him about the ongoing corruption in the Mathura unit of the Army, and he also made complaints about this to his superiors. According to the appellant, due to this reason, his son was murdered.

The first court inquiry into the matter was made by the Army, which held its report in 2003, holding it to be a case of suicide. Unsatisfied with the report, the appellant on 24.04.2004 demanded another detailed investigation by the then Chief of the Army Staff, Gen. N.V. Vij, but the conclusion of the report was the same, holding the matter a suicide. The appellant, aggrieved by both the investigations of the Army Court, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court. The appellant prayed for the investigation to be done by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which was dismissed. Hence, this appeal was filed by the appellant in the Supreme Court by special leave.

Issues raised

1. Whether the Magistrate has the power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to pass an order for the investigation by the CBI?
2. Whether the Magistrate has power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to dismiss the order for the registration of an FIR?
3. Whether an individual can approach the High Court even if there are alternative remedies available in CrPC?
4. Is it possible for the aggrieved party to ask for a specific agency for the investigation?
5. Whether the Magistrate has the power to dismiss the re-opening order for the investigation after the ‘Final Report’ is submitted under Section 156(3) of CrPC.

Arguments of the parties in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

 Appellant

1. The appellant made the argument that the appellant’s son, Major S. Ravishankar, was aware of the corruption happening in the Mathura Army Unit. He made an oral complaint about the same to his superiors and also informed his father about this corruption. The appellant argued that his son was murdered due to this very reason.
2. The appellant also argued that the proper investigation was not done by the GRP Mathura, and the detailed report submitted by them concluding his son’s death as suicide is faulted.
3. Lastly, the appellant was not satisfied with the investigation and inquiries made by the GRP Mathura and Army Courts, he prayed in his writ petition for the CBI investigation.

Respondent 

1. The Ld. Counsel for the State of UP argued that, as per the inquiry made by the Army, relying upon the statement of Sahayak (domestic help), Major S. Ravishankar sometimes remains unaware of his surroundings, resulting in the inquiry that Major S. Ravishankar died by accident as he was struck by the goods train coming from Delhi. The same was witnessed by the eyewitness, Gangman Ram Swaroop.
2. The argument made by the respondent was that the GRP investigation also concluded that the appellant’s son’s death was either an accident or suicide, but as the appellant was unsatisfied with the investigation results, the order for another investigation was made by the state to the Army Court.
3. The respondent alleged that a person cannot specifically demand an investigation from a particular agency; instead, a demand for another investigation can be made. 

Laws and precedents discussed in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

The following are the sections and Articles deal within the case

1. Section 154(1) CrPC: This provision states that the aggrieved person can make a complaint about the cognizable offence committed against him to the police officer in charge of the police station. It shall be reduced to the writing by him or on his order by some other police, and the same will be read to the complainant.
2. Section 154(3) CrPC: If the FIR is not registered by the police in charge of the police station, then the aggrieved can approach the Superintendent of Police (SP) by writing an application. SP either himself or directs any of his subordinates to investigate the same.
3. Section 156(3) CrPC: The aggrieved person can make a complaint before the judicial magistrate if his FIR is not registered or a proper investigation has not been done. The magistrate can order for both.
4. Section 36 CrPC: Section 36 talks about the concerned police officers to whom the complaint has to be made in case of refusal from an officer in charge or SP, i.e., DIG, DGP or IG.
5. Section 200 CrPC: A criminal complaint can be made by the aggrieved to the magistrate for the registration of a crime that has been committed.
6. Section 482 CrPC: It is the inherent power of the High Court to pass an order in case any expressed provision is not available in the Code to maintain justice.
7. Section 173(8) CrPC: If the investigation officer finds further any oral or documentary evidence which is very important for the proceeding of the case. Then the evidence will be put before the magistrate in a prescribed manner, and nothing can prevent the magistrate from passing an order for further investigation, even after the final report has been submitted by the police. 
8. Article 136: It talks about the special jurisdiction through which an aggrieved person can file a writ petition in the Supreme Court by Special Leave (SL). Under this provision, an individual aggrieved by the decision of any tribunal or court can file a petition. It is the discretionary power of the Supreme Court to grant SL under Article 136.
9. Article 226: It talks about the jurisdiction of the High Court, where the writ petition by the aggrieved can be filed.  

The court relied on several case laws for the pronouncement of judgment.

CBI v. State of Rajasthan (2007)

In this case, it was held that the Magistrate does not hold the power to order the CBI to investigate, but the High Court and Supreme Court, under Articles 136 and Article 226, can order the CBI to investigate the case. It would be done only in rare cases, otherwise the CBI would be burdened with unnecessary cases, and the relevance of the police would be in conflict.  

CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi and Others (1997)

In this case, it has been held by the SC that no one can ask for a specific agency for the investigation of the matter. An aggrieved person has a right to claim for the proper investigation of the case he alleges, but he has no right to claim for the investigation to be done by a specific agency of his choice. 

Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan and Another (2006)

In this case, the Supreme Court observed that any judicial magistrate can direct an order to the police for the investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC before taking cognizance of an offence. Even if the judicial magistrate does not specifically order the registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the officer in charge of the police station has to register the FIR of the cognizable offence made by the complainant so the record of the components of the offence can be registered and a proper investigation can be done.

Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (2007)

In this case, a similar view to the above mentioned case of Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahn, was taken by the court in this matter. The court clarified that even if the FIR has been registered and an investigation has been done by the police or the investigation is ongoing, if the aggrieved party is not satisfied with it, then such a person can approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC. The magistrate can order a proper investigation after he is satisfied and pass any other orders he thinks are suitable for the proper investigation of the matter.  

State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (1980)

In this case, the magistrate has independent power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to order further investigation when the detailed report of the investigation is submitted by the investigating officer under Section 173(8) of the CrPC. Hence, the order for reopening the case can be made by the magistrate after submitting the final report, if the magistrate is not satisfied with the investigation report.

Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors. (2010)

In this case, it was determined that if the complaint had not been registered by a police officer or a proper investigation had not been done, then an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person instead of approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

High Court’s power under section 482 CrPC

The High Court has an inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC, which enables the High Court to make any order necessary to prevent any abuse by any court and secure the ends of justice. The Hon’ble Apex Court relied on the case of Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan.  It was observed that in India the High Courts are flooded with writ petitions praying for an order for the registration of an FIR or a proper investigation. The Supreme Court asked the High Court not to entertain such petitions and asked to refuse such matters as other alternative remedies are already present in the Code. First, under sections 154(3) CrPC and section 36 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 the aggrieved can approach the police, and if such a complaint is denied by the police officer, then, secondly, the aggrieved can approach the judicial magistrate under section 156(3) of the CrPC instead of filing a writ petition under section 482 of the CrPC, increasing the burden on the High Court. Further, the remedy of filing a complaint under Section 200 CrPC is also available.

Doctrines discussed in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

Some of the doctrines discussed in the case are as follows: 

Doctrine of implied power 

It is already stated that when any power is expressly granted by a statute to any authority, it includes implied powers for doing things properly, without any special mention. If there’s any refusal or denial of such implied powers, it will be considered ineffective under that provision. Hence, if any act or statute grants any expressed power, the implied power to do the same is already given, and it’s extremely important for the execution of such powers.

Crawford expresses the reason for such a rule in his Statutory Construction, observing, “….if these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an interminable process, and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission.”

In Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat (1986), the court held that the power of the Magistrate under Section 125 CrPC to grant maintenance to the wife implies the power to grant interim maintenance to the wife while the matter is pending. 

From considering the above-mentioned legal position, it is obvious, as Section 156(3) is briefly worded, that there’s an implied power of the Magistrate to order the registration of an FIR for a criminal offence and to direct the police for the proper investigation of the matter. Even if these procedures are not expressly mentioned under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, they are the implied powers of the magistrate in the above provision.

Doctrine of updating construction

As per the doctrine of construction, the law should evolve along with the evolution of society. Hon’ble J. Bhagwati, in National Textile Workers Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan (1981), said that law cannot be stagnant and stand still; it needs to be changed with social values and concepts. Section 156(3) requires the matter to be sent in writing via post. Before technological advancement, it would be considered the fastest mode of communication. After the technological developments, there are different modes of communication, such as WhatsApp, e-mail, or cellular calls, available for interpretation in writing and through the post. This doctrine should be used to cover such modes of investigation.

Judgement of Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

The Supreme Court, relying on the case of CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi & Ors., held that any person who is aggrieved by the decision of any court or by an investigation by the police can refer the claim for the proper investigation but cannot demand the investigation by a specified agency. The Supreme Court believed that when an alternative remedy is present, there’s no need to approach the High Court as it would increase the burden and number of cases.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgement of the High Court, rejecting the plea of the appellant asking for the CBI investigation, as there was no prima facie case to allow for such an investigation by the CBI. The previous inquiries done by the G.R.P. Mathura and two times by Army authorities have already shown that the cause of death of the deceased was an accident or suicide. 

The court also stated that the position of acceptance of the final report of the investigation was not clear, whether it was accepted by the magistrate or not. If the report is not accepted, then the matter is still deemed pending before the magistrate, and no order has been made. If the report is accepted by the magistrate then the matter would be considered completed.

Rationale behind the judgement

The Hon’ble J. Markandey Katju stated that an alternative remedy is present before an individual in the court instead of approaching the High Court. He said if any man or woman had to make a complaint, they would approach the police station, and the officer in charge would register their FIR under Section 154(1) CrPC; if the approach was denied, they’ll resort to the Superintendent of Police (SP) under Section 154(3) or Section 36. If the complaint is not registered, then the aggrieved person will approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC instead of filing a writ petition under Section 482 of the CrPC to seek justice. Moreover, the person can also file a criminal complaint in court under Section 200 of CrPC.

It is an alternative remedy presented to the aggrieved person, but it doesn’t bar a person from approaching the High Court. The writ petition could be filed in the High Court under both Section 482 CrPC and Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the High Court reserves the right to reject the petition if an alternative remedy is available

Court’s observation and guidelines in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP (2007)

The guidelines made by the Supreme Court are:

1. Report the complaint to the office in charge of the police station under Section 154(1) of the CrPC.
2. Report to the Superintendent of Police (SP) if the officer in charge refuses to register an FIR under Section 154(3) of the CrPC.
3. Report to the police officer superior of SP, i.e., DIG, DGP, IG under Section 36.
4. Report to the judicial magistrate in case of failure in the filing of an FIR by any of the police authorities under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.
5. The judicial magistrate has the power to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC.
6. The inherent power of the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.
7. File a writ petition in the High Court and in the Supreme Court under Article 226.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, by making the remarkable landmark judgement in this case, has supported the idea of the alternative remedies present to the individuals for resorting to their issues regarding the registration of an FIR or for proper investigation under Sections 154 and 156 of the CrPC instead of directly reaching to the High Courts or the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 

It is evident from this judgement that, for any proper investigation, the registration of the FIR is necessary by the police officials. Then the magistrate must take cognizance of an offence based on the report presented before him by the investigation officer to order the further proper investigation of the matter. 

In the recent judgement of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors (2010), it was determined that if the complaint has not been registered by a police officer or a proper investigation has not been done, an alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person instead of approaching the High Court under Article  226 of the Constitution, which is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Does the High Court have the power under Section 482 CrPC to reject the writ petition?

The High Court has the inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to either accept or reject a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, especially when an individual is aggrieved with the decision of lower courts. The High Court will entertain such a petition only in cases where no alternative remedy is present, particularly when a First Information Report (FIR) was not registered under Section 154 of the CrPC and a proper investigation was not conducted under Section 156 of the CrPC. It is also important to note that, before approaching the High Court, several alternative remedies are available to the aggrieved party. These remedies include seeking redress from the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the CrPC, addressing the DIG, DGP, and IG under Section 36 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, and filing a complaint under Section 200 of the CrPC before a Judicial Magistrate.

Can the magistrate have the power to reopen the investigation?

The Magistrate has power under Section 178 CrPC to order the investigation officer to re-investigation of the complaint in two conditions. Firstly, if he is not satisfied with the final report submitted by the police. Secondly, if there is any new concrete evidence came into the picture.

References

1. Earl T Crawford, The Construction of Statutes 1008 (1940).
2. https://lawfoyer.in/sakiri-vasu-v-s-state-of-up-and-ors/ 

---

Students of Lawsikho courses regularly produce writing assignments and work on practical exercises as a part of their coursework and develop themselves in real-life practical skills.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals, and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/lawyerscommunity

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.