Introduction
As the topic suggests, this article will be throwing light upon investigation and that to under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The main objective of CrPC is to find out the culprit or the person who has committed the crime and ensure that he is punished by the courts.
What is meant by investigation?
Basically, under the CrPC, according to Section 2(h), the investigation is a process that includes all the proceedings for the collection of all the evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person(other than the Magistrate) who is authorized by the magistrate in this behalf. The main elements of an investigation are:
- It must be as a procedure and not only one activity such as recording the complaint.
- The objective of the investigation should be to collect evidence.
- Investigation can be directed by police or a private individual yet not by Magistrate.
In the case of State v. Pareshwar Ghosi[1], the court held that etymologically, the term investigation implies any procedure that includes filtering of materials or search of relevant information with the end goal of ascertainment of facts in issue in a matter at hand.
Investigation under Section 156(3)
The power under Section 156 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) can be practiced by the Magistrate to guide the police to lead the investigation, just in regard to a cognizable offence. Now, here, it is important to know what is meant by a cognizable offence.
As per Section 2 (c) of the CrPC, a “cognizable offence” means an offence for which, and “cognizable case” means a case in which, a police officer may, in accordance with the First Schedule or under any other law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. In a layman language, it means that in case of a cognizable offence, a police officer may arrest the accused without a warrant as cognizable offences are mostly of a grave and serious nature. Thus, it becomes imperative to arrest the accused without any delay.
A complaint identifying with the commission of a cognizable offence is typically given straightforwardly to the police under Section 154 of the CrPC. It is recorded as the First Information Report (FIR). It is obligatory for the police to enroll an FIR if the complaint is related to the commission of a cognizable offence.
However, it may happen that even after informing the police about the commission of a cognizable offence, the police authorities did not register the FIR. In such a situation, what can be done is that the complainant may firstly approach any Senior Police official or the Superintendent of Police with a written application. Even after doing this much, no satisfactory result is obtained or after registration of an FIR, no proper investigation is conducted, then one can approach the Magistrate having jurisdiction, who can then ask the police authorities to register the FIR and conduct an investigation.
Section 156 clarifies that the police officer is likely to investigate any cognizable case when data is received by him. Be that as it may if the police refuse to investigate any cognizable case, at that point the oppressed individual has a solution for approaching the Magistrate under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC and, further the Magistrate under this provision has been enabled to pass a request for investigation for the situation where a cognizable offence was committed. Notwithstanding, a bare reading of Sub-section (3) to Section 156 likewise exhibit that it is not explicitly referenced under Section 156 (3) regardless of whether it is obligatory for the Magistrate to order registration of a criminal offence or potentially to direct the official responsible for the concerned police station to hold an appropriate investigation and take all the necessary steps that might be important for guaranteeing a legitimate investigation.
Nonetheless, the law in such manner, on numerous occasions, has been held by the Apex Court and the different High Courts of India, that when a Magistrate gets an application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr. PC, he will undoubtedly take immediate cognizance regardless of whether the alleged facts unveil the commission of the offence.
In the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. the State of Gujarat[2], the Supreme Court held that the direction under Section 156 (3) of the Code is to be given, simply after use of mind by the Magistrate. At the point when the Magistrate does not take cognizance and doesn’t think it important to defer the issuance of the procedure and finds a case made out to continue forthwith, a direction under the said provision is issued.
In Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr. JT[3], it was observed by the Court that the reasonable position in this way is that any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. On the off chance that he does as such, he is not to analyze the complainant on pledge since he was not taking cognizance of any offence in that. To empower the police to begin the investigation, it is available to the Magistrate to guide the police to register an FIR. There is nothing unlawful in doing as such.
In another case of Devarapalli Lakshminarayana Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy[4], the Supreme Court held that, when a Magistrate receives a complaint, he is not obliged to take cognizance if the facts claimed in the complaint, uncover the commission of an offence. This is obvious from the utilization of the words “may take cognizance” which in the context in which they happen can’t be compared with must take cognizance”. The word “may” gives an option to the Magistrate in the issue. On the off chance that on a reading of the complaint, he finds that the claims or allegations in that disclose a cognizable offence and the sending of the complaint to the police for investigation under Section 156 (3) will be helpful for equity and spare the significant time of the Magistrate from being wasted in enquiring into an issue which was basically the obligation of the police to investigate, he will be supported in embracing that course as an option in contrast to taking cognizance of the offence, himself.
Conclusion
The investigation procedure engaged with criminal cases is incredibly thorough. It includes a lot of procedures which should be followed with due steadiness. The power given to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the CrPC warrants utilization of the legal mind by the Magistrate and the litigant cannot, at its own impulse, conjure the authority of the Magistrate. The Magistrate should act precisely and direct registration of an FIR in every case in a daily schedule and easygoing manner.
Sources:
[1] AIR 1968 Ori 20.
[2] (2015) 6 SCC 439.
[3] 2006(1) SC 10.
[4] (1976) 3 SCC 252.
This blog is written by Rashi Srivastava, Amity University.
Some of her blogs-
- RIGHT TO DIE: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?
- AN ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL IPR POLICY
- COPYRIGHT VS DESIGN
- DUAL CITIZENSHIP IN INDIA
- CHARGE UNDER CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Visit our Instagram page @lawyergyan at this link.
