AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Leave granted.
These two appeals have been filed against the common impugned judgment of the High Court of Bombay dated 8-9-2009.
The facts in detail have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence we are not repeating the same here. By the impugned order, the Bombay
High Court has, in para 9 of its order, changed the investigating officer and appointed a Special Investigating Officer to investigate into the alleged
offence.
This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907 ,]
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) CrPC. 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 [Supra] 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.
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) CrPC 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.
In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case (Supra) , the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.
The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he deems it necessary,
he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also
monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the job of the police). Parties may produce any material they wish
before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court.
The appeals are allowed in the above terms.
In view of the aforesaid order, no orders need be passed on the application for intervention and it is disposed of accordingly.