Introduction
A Magistrate has the ability to oversee, monitor, and control inquiries and can also order the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), in accordance with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and many Supreme Court decisions. This indicates that, as expressly stated in the CrPC guidelines, a Magistrate has more investigation and FIR registration jurisdiction than the police.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court acknowledged that a Magistrate has the authority to order an investigation if the police refuse to do so in the case of M/s Sujan Multiports Ltd. v/s State of Haryana if the subject fits within the Magistrate’s scope as outlined in Sections 159 and 157 of the CrPC. This means that a Magistrate has the authority to direct an investigation to be carried out by the police or any other authorised party, as long as it is done so under his or her direct supervision.
In conclusion, a Magistrate has the jurisdiction to lead investigations, order the registration of FIRs, and can oversee the whole process, including supervising the police or other authorised individuals conducting the inquiry, in accordance with Section 156(3) of the CrPC and pertinent court judgements.
Background
On February 18, 1988, the appellant complained to the Chief Magistrate of Kurukshetra about the defendants, her husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law, alleging violations of Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the magistrate ordered the police to file a report and look into the complaint.
After conducting an investigation, the police filed a FIR and a charge sheet against the respondents. The charge sheet was acknowledged by the magistrate, who then filed charges against the respondents under Section 406 IPC.
Later, on January 29, 1994, the appellant brought a new lawsuit under Section 498A of the IPC against the respondents before the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Karnal. A similar order was made by the Magistrate for the registration of a case and inquiry under Section 156(3) of the CrPC. After conducting an investigation, the Karnal Police Station filed a FIR and a charge sheet against the respondents. In compliance with Section 240 of the CrPC, the Magistrate recognised the offence and filed charges against the respondents. The respondents had unsuccessfully appealed the wording of the charges to the Sessions Judge.
Issue
The decisions of the Chief Judicial Magistrates of Kurukshetra and Karnal, dated February 18, 1988 and January 29, 1994, respectively, which instructed the police to register cases based on the allegations of the appellant, as well as the subsequent procedures of the two cases, were nullified by the High Court. The High Court ruled that a Magistrate does not have the jurisdiction to order the registration of a case and is only authorised to direct the police to undertake an investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Argument raised by respondent
The respondents filed petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in order to have the two cases’ current trials dismissed. They stated that all activities based on the instructions issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrates of Kurukshetra and Karnal, which instructed the registration of cases allegedly under Section 156(3) of the Code, were manifestly unlawful.
Judgement
The challenged judgement, according to the Supreme Court, is wholly invalid since it disregarded key elements of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Court emphasised that the police must record a cognizable case on a complaint, considering it as the First Information Report (FIR), and abide by the requirements of the applicable regulations when a Magistrate orders an inquiry based on a complaint. The court stated “We struggle to see how a magistrate’s decision for the police to “register a case” might invalidate a Section 156(3) investigation order.” According to Section 156(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the guidelines established by the Indian Police Act of 1861, the police must legally record a case and subsequently launch an investigation even if the Magistrate does not expressly command so. In conclusion, Section 156(3) of the CrPC suggests that the court has the ability to order the registration of a case as well as the direction of an inquiry as per Section 156(1) of the CrPC.
Conclusion
The text of Section 156(3) is quite condensed. Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. does not specifically indicate the magistrate’s authority. If that is the case, it raises the question of whether the Magistrate has the implied authority under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code to order the registration of a criminal offence and/or to order the officer in charge of the relevant police station to conduct a proper investigation and take any other steps that may be required to ensure a proper investigation, including monitoring the same.
Additionally, a person who feels wronged has the right to demand that the alleged crime be thoroughly examined.
Reference
- Madhu Bala v. Suresh Kumar (1997) 8 SCC 476
This Article is Written By Varsha Gond, Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law, Punjab, an intern under Legal Vidhiya
