Madhuri Devi vs The State Of U.P Thru Secy., Home ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 1925 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

1.	This writ petition has been filed by complainant Madhuri Devi who lodged First Information Report dated 15.06.2015 in Case Crime No.220/2015 under Sections 376-D, 452, 395, 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as I.P.C), Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Sultanpur (Annexure-1) with a prayer that a writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued directing the investigating agency to take action against the accused, respondents 4 to 9 in the course of investigation of the case. In effect, the petition seeks issuance of a writ directing the investigating agency to conduct proper investigation.

2. As per the averments in the petition, the petitioner was running a Beauty Parlour-cum-Embroidery shop from her house. On 29th April, 2014 at night, when the petitioner was alone in her house at about 11.00 p.m., Manju Devi, respondent No.5 knocked on her door and got the door opened. The accused persons entered her house, gave beatings to the petitioner, committed rape and looted articles, including cash, Rs.10,000/.

3. The petitioner/victim approached the Station House Officer of police station concerned on 30.4.2014 for registration of First Information Report, however, the Station House Officer refused to entertain the complaint of the petitioner.

4. It has been pleaded that the accused are influential persons having political connections. Under the circumstances, the petitioner filed an application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as CrPC) in the court of Magistrate having jurisdiction. The Magistrate passed orders on 7.7.2014 (Annexure-2) directing registration of case and to proceed with investigation.

5. The date on which application under Section 156(3) CrPC was made has not been given in the petition. Be that as it may, First Information Report (supra) was registered and investigation undertaken.

6. It has been pleaded that the petitioner/victim was medically examined and her statement was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC. In her statement, the petitioner has reiterated the allegations made in the First Information Report. It has been alleged that despite criminal proceedings having been initiated, proper and effective investigation has not been conducted.

7. Aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the investigating officer, the petitioner moved applications to senior police authorities, viz. Circle Officer, Superintendent of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police etc, on 29.6.2015, 1.7.2015 and 23.7.2015, placed on record collectively as Annexures 4 and 5. In the said applications, it has been prayed that the accused be arrested and proper investigation conducted.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent State has argued that the petitioner be relegated to filing an application before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to seek proper investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant however prays that the High Court should take cognizance of improper and shoddy investigation conducted by the investigating agency and pass appropriate orders exercising writ jurisdiction.

9. We have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. A large number of cases are being filed every day by complainant, informant or even accused to seek proper, fair and effective investigation. So as to consider the issue, the Court is required to consider, at the first instance, what is investigation; reasons why a large number of such petitions are being filed, and whether such petitioners can be relegated to judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance.

11. "Investigation" and "Offence" have been defined as under.

12. "Investigation"is a term defined under Section 2 (h) of the CrPC in the following terms:

"(h)"investigation" includes all the proceedings under this Code for the collection of evidence conducted by a police officer or by any person (other than a Magistrate) who is authorised by a Magistrate in this behalf;"

13. The dictionary meaning of investigation as per The New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary of the English Language is "an examination for the purpose of discovering information about something".

14. As per Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English, investigation is "an official examination of the facts about a situation, crime, etc".

15. "Investigate" has been defined in Oxford Dictionary (supra) as, "to carefully examine the facts of a situation, an event, a crime etc to find out the truth about it or how it happened."

16. "Offence" has been defined under Section 2(n) of the CrPC in the following terms:

"(n)"offence"means any act or omission made punishable by any law for the time being in force and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made under Section 20 of the Cattle Trespass Act, 1871 (1 of 1871 );"

17. "Cognizable Offence" has been defined in Section 2(c) CrPC as under:

"(c) "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;"

18. Local jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate has been defined under Section 14 CrPC. The relevant portion of the provision reads as under:

"14.Local Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrates.- (1) Subject to the control of the High Court, the Chief Judicial Magistrate may, from time to time, define the local limits of the areas within which the Magistrates appointed under section 11 or under section 13 may exercise all or any of the powers with which they may respectively be invested under this Code:

Provided that the Court of a Special Judicial Magistrate may hold its sitting at any place within the local area for which it is established.

(2)Except as otherwise provided by such definition, the jurisdiction and powers of every such Magistrate shall extend throughout the district.

(3)........................................"

19. So as to consider involvement of the Magistrate having jurisdiction, in the process of investigation, the court is required to consider the relevant provisions in Chapter XII of the CrPC.

20. Relevant portion of Section 156 CrPC reads as under:

"156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable case:- (1)Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

(2) ..................

(3) Any Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

21. Relevant portion of Section 157 CrPC reads as under:

"157. Procedure for investigation -(1) If, from information received or otherwise, an officer in charge of a police station has reason to suspect the commission of an offence which he is empowered under section 156 to investigate, he shall forthwith send a report of the same to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of such offence upon a police report and shall proceed in person, or shall depute one of his subordinate officers not being below such rank as the State Government may, by general or special order, prescribe in this behalf, to proceed, to the spot, to investigate the facts and circumstances of the case, and, if necessary, to take measures for the discovery and arrest of the offender:

Provided that-......................"

[Emphasis supplied by us]

22. Provisions of Section 158 CrPC detail the manner, in which report is to be sent to the Magistrate under Section 157 of the CrPC.

23. Section 159 CrPC provides as under:

"159. Power to hold investigation or preliminary inquiry.- Such Magistrate, on receiving such report, may direct an investigation, or, if he thinks fit, at once proceed, or depute any Magistrate subordinate to him to proceed, to hold a preliminary inquiry into, or otherwise to dispose of, the case in the manner provided in this Code."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

24. Provisions of Section 165 CrPC read as under:

"165.Search by police officer. (1) Whenever an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making an investigation has reasonable grounds for believing that anything necessary for the purposes of an investigation into any offence which he is authorised to investigate may be found in any place within the limits of the police station of which he is in charge, or to which he is attached, and that such thing cannot in his opinion be otherwise obtained without undue delay, such officer may, after recording in writing the grounds of his belief and specifying in such writing, so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made, search, or cause search to be made, for such thing in any place within the limits of such station.

(2)A police officer proceeding under sub- section (1), shall, if practicable, conduct the search in person.

(3)If he is unable to conduct the search in person, and there is no other person competent to make the search present at the time, he may, after recording in writing his reasons for so doing, require any officer subordinate to him to make the search, and he shall deliver to such subordinate officer an order in writing, specifying the place to be searched, and so far as possible, the thing for which search is to be made; and such subordinate officer may thereupon search for such thing in such place.

(4)The provisions of this Code as to search- warrants and the general provisions as to searches contained in section 100 shall, so far as may be, apply to a search made under this section.

(5) Copies of any record made under sub- section (1) or sub-section (3) shall forthwith be sent to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, and the owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished, free of cost, with a copy of the same by the Magistrate."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

25. Provisions of Section 166 CrPC provide as under:

"166. When officer in charge of police station may require another to issue search warrant- (1) An officer in charge of a police station or a police officer not being below the rank of sub- inspector making an investigation may require an officer in charge of another police station, whether in the same or a different district, to cause a search to be made in any place, in any case in which, the former officer might cause such search to be made, within the limits of his own station.

(2) Such officer, on being so required, shall proceed according to the provisions of section 165, and shall forward the thing found, if any, to the officer at whose request the search was made.

(3) Whenever there is reason to believe that the delay occasioned by requiring an officer in charge of another police station to cause a search to be made under sub- section (1) might result in evidence of the commission of an offence being concealed or destroyed, it shall be lawful for an officer in charge of a police station or a police officer making any investigation under this Chapter to search, or cause to be searched, any place in the limits of another police station in accordance with the provisions of section 165, as if such place were within the limits of his own police station.

(4) Any officer conducting a search under sub- section (3) shall forthwith send notice of the search to the officer in charge of the police station within the limits of which such place is situate, and shall also send with such notice a copy of the list (if any) prepared under section 100, and shall also send to the nearest Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence, copies of the records referred to in sub- sections (1) and (3) of section 165.

(5) The owner or occupier of the place searched shall, on application, be furnished free of cost with a copy of any record sent to the Magistrate under sub- section (4)."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

26. Relevant portion of Section 167 CrPC reads as under:

"167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours.- (1) Whenever any person is arrested and detained in custody, and it appears that the investigation cannot be completed within the period of twenty- four hours fixed by section 57, and there are grounds for believing that the accusation or information is well- founded, the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of sub- inspector, shall forthwith transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate a copy of the entries in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall at the same time forward the accused to such Magistrate.

(2) The Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time, authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding fifteen days in the whole; and if he has no jurisdiction to try the case or commit it for trial, and considers further detention unnecessary, he may order the accused to be forwarded to a Magistrate having such jurisdiction:

Provided that-

(a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, -

(i)ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years;

(ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused person shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub- section shall be deemed to be so released under the provisions of Chapter XXXIII for the purposes of that Chapter;

(b) no Magistrate shall authorise detention of the accused in custody of the police under this section unless the accused is produced before him in person for the first time and subsequently every time till the accused remains in the custody of the police, but the Magistrate may extend further detention in judicial custody on production of the accused either in person or through the medium of electronic video linkage;

(c) no Magistrate of the second class, not specially empowered in this behalf by the High Court, shall authorise detention in the custody of the police.

Explanation I.- ...................

Explanation II.- If any question arises whether an accused person was produced before the Magistrate as required under paragraph (b), the production of the accused person may be proved by his signature on the order authorising detention or by the order certified by the Magistrate as to production of the accused person through the medium of electronic video linkage, as the case may be;

Provided ..............

(2-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) or sub- section (2), the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, if he is not below the rank of a sub- inspector, may, where a Judicial Magistrate is not available, transmit to the nearest Executive Magistrate, on whom the powers of a Judicial Magistrate, or Metropolitan Magistrate have been conferred, a copy of the entry in the diary hereinafter prescribed relating to the case, and shall, at the same time, forward the accused to such Executive Magistrate, and thereupon such Executive Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, authorise the detention of the accused person in such custody as he may think fit for a term not exceeding seven days in the aggregate; and, on the expiry of the period of detention so authorised, the accused person shall be released on bail except where an order for further detention of the accused person has been made by a Magistrate competent to make such order; and, where an order for such further detention is made, the period during which the accused person was detained in custody under the orders made by an Executive Magistrate under this sub- section shall be taken into account in computing the period specified in paragraph (a) of the proviso to sub- section (2):

Provided that before the expiry of the period aforesaid, the Executive Magistrate shall transmit to the nearest Judicial Magistrate the records of the case together with a copy of the entries in the diary relating to the case which was transmitted to him by the officer in charge of the police station or the police officer making the investigation, as the case may be.

(3) A Magistrate authorising under this section detention in the custody of the police shall record his reasons for so doing.

(4) Any Magistrate other than the Chief Judicial Magistrate making such order shall forward a copy of his order, with his reasons for making it to the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(5) If in any case triable by a Magistrate as a summons- case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months from the date on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence unless the officer making the investigation satisfies the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice the continuation of the investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary.

(6) .............................."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

27. Provisions of Section 169 CrPC read as under:

"169. Release of accused when evidence deficient.-If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties, as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial. "

[Emphasis supplied by us]

28. Provisions of Section 170 CrPC read as under:-

"170. Cases to be sent to Magistrate when evidence is sufficient - (1) If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground as aforesaid, such officer shall forward the accused under custody to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence upon a police report and to try the accused or commit him for trial, or, if the offence is bailable and the accused is able to give security, shall take security from him for his appearance before such Magistrate on a day fixed and for his attendance from day to day before such Magistrate until otherwise directed.

(2) When the officer in charge of a police station forwards an accused person to a Magistrate or takes security for his appearance before such Magistrate under this section, he shall send to such Magistrate any weapon or other article which it may be necessary to produce before him, and shall require the complainant (if any) and so many of the persons who appear to such officer to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case as he may think necessary, to execute a bond to appear before the Magistrate as thereby directed and prosecute or give evidence (as the case may be) in the matter of the charge against the accused.

(3) If the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate is mentioned in the bond, such Court shall be held to include any Court to which such Magistrate may refer the case for inquiry or trial, provided reasonable notice of such reference is given to such complainant or persons.

(4) The officer in whose presence the bond is executed shall deliver a copy thereof to one of the persons who executed it, and shall then send to the Magistrate the original with his report. "

[Emphasis supplied by us]

29. Relevant provisions of Section 173 CrPC read as under:

"173. Report of police officer on completion of investigation.- (1) Every investigation under this Chapter shall be completed without unnecessary delay.

[(1-A) .................

(2) (i) As soon as it is completed, the officer in charge of the police station shall forward to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, a report in the form prescribed by the State Government, stating-

(a) the names of the parties;

(b) the nature of the information;

(c) The names of the persons who appear to be acquainted with the circumstances of the case;

(d) whether any offence appears to have been committed and, if so, by whom;

(e) whether the accused has been arrested;

(f) whether he has been released on his bond and, if so, whether with or without sureties;

(g) whether he has been forwarded in custody under section 170.

[(h) whether the report of medical examination of the woman has been attached where investigation relates to an offence under Section 376, 376A, 376B, 376C [Section 376D or section 376 E of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The officer shall also communicate, in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government, the action taken by him to the person, if any, by whom the information relating to the commission of the offence was first given.

(3) Where a superior officer of police has been appointed under section 158, the report shall, in any case in which the State Government by general or special order so directs, be submitted through that officer, and he may, pending the orders of the Magistrate, direct the officer in charge of the police station to make further investigation.

(4) Whenever it appears from a report forwarded under this section that the accused has been released on his bond, the Magistrate shall make such order for the discharge of such bond or otherwise as he thinks fit.

(5) When such report is in respect of a case to which section 170 applies, the police officer shall forward to the Magistrate alongwith the report-

(a) all documents or relevant extracts thereof on which the prosecution proposes to rely other than those already sent to the Magistrate during investigation;

(b) the statements recorded under section 161 of all the persons whom the prosecution proposes to examine as its witnesses.

(6) If the police officer is of opinion that any part of any such statement is not relevant to the subject- matter of the proceedings or that its disclosure to the accused is not essential in the interests of justice and is inexpedient in the public interest, he shall indicate that part of the statement and append a note requesting the Magistrate to exclude that part from the copies to be granted to the accused and stating his reasons for making such request.

(7) Where the police officer investigating the case finds it convenient so to do, he may furnish to the accused copies of all or any of the documents referred to in sub- section (5).

(8) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to preclude further investigation in respect of an offence after a report under sub- section (2) has been forwarded to the Magistrate and, where upon such investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall forward to the Magistrate a further report or reports regarding such evidence in the form prescribed; and the provisions of sub- sections (2) to (6) shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub- section (2). "

[Emphasis supplied by us]

30. When a complainant/ informant approaches an officer in charge of a Police Station under Sub-section (1) of Section 154 CrPC for registration of a case in context of commission of a cognizable offence and if, the officer refuses to record the information, the complainant/ informant has the option of sending substance of such information in writing and by post to Superintendent of Police concerned.

31. It is settled law that in case even the Superintendent of Police concerned does not direct registration of First Information Report in context of commission of a cognizable offence, that person has the remedy of filing application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate having jurisdiction. Local jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate is provided under Section 14 CrPC, which provision has been extracted above.

32. On receipt of an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 156 CrPC, the Magistrate has the authority to consider whether prima facie cognizable offence has been committed or not. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate is limited to only prima facie consider, on the basis of affidavit/material filed by the complainant/informant to deliberate whether ingredients of alleged cognizable offence are made out or not, (vide Priyanka Srivastava and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2015) 6 SCC 287 at paras 30 and 31). On being prima facie satisfied that a cognizable offence has been committed, the Magistrate may direct the officer in charge of the concerned Police Station to register a case and undertake investigation.

33. Having considered the relevant legal provisions in context of investigation into a cognizable offence and association of the Magistrate in the course of investigation initiated under Section 154 CrPC, on registration of First Information Report and concluded on filing of a report under Section 173(2) CrPC and even a supplementary report after concluding further investigation under section 173(8) CrPC, we deem it appropriate to consider as to what is investigation and also examine as to why such a large number of cases are being filed seeking proper, fair, effective and speedy investigation.

34. In context of investigation/further investigation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Ram Lal Narang versus State (Delhi Administration), (1979)2 SCC 322 (paras 20 and 21), has held as follows:

"20. Anyone acquainted with the day-to-day working of the criminal courts will be alive to the practical necessity of the police possessing the power to make further investigation and submit a supplemental report. It is in the interests of both the prosecution and the defence that the police should have such power. It is easy to visualise a case where fresh material may come to light which would implicate persons not previously accused or absolve persons already accused. When it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has a good alibi, is it not the duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi and submit a report to the Magistrate? After all the investigating agency has greater resources at its command than a private individual. Similarly, where the involvement of persons who are not already accused comes to the notice of the investigating agency, the investigating agency cannot keep quiet and refuse to investigate the fresh information. It is their duty to investigate and submit a report to the Magistrate upon the involvement of the other persons. In either case, it is for the Magistrate to decide upon his future course of action depending upon the stage at which the case is before him. If he has already taken cognizance of the offence, but has not proceeded with the enquiry or trial, he may direct the issue of process to persons freshly discovered to be involved and deal with all the accused in a single enquiry or trial. If the case of which he has previously taken cognizance has already proceeded to some extent, he may take fresh cognizance of the offence disclosed against the newly involved accused and proceed with the case as a separate case. What action a Magistrate is to take in accordance with the provisions of the Cr.P.C. in such situations is a matter best left to the discretion of the Magistrate. The criticism that a further investigation by the police would trench upon the proceedings before the Court is really not of very great substance, since whatever the police may do, the final discretion in regard to further action is with the Magistrate. That the final word is with the Magistrate is sufficient safeguard against any excessive use or abuse of the power of the police to make further investigation. We should not, however, be understood to say that the police should ignore the pendency of a proceeding before a Court and investigate every fresh fact that comes to light as if no cognizance had been taken by the Court of any offence. We think that in the interests of the independence of the magistracy and the judiciary, in the interests of the purity of the administration of criminal justice and in the interests of the comity of the various agencies and institutions entrusted with different stages of such administration, it would ordinarily be desirable that the police should inform the Court and seek formal permission to make further investigation when fresh facts come to light.

21. As observed by us earlier, there was no provision in the Cr.P.C. of Criminal Procedure, 1898 which, expressly or by necessary implication, barred the right of the police to further investigate after cognizance of the case had been taken by the Magistrate. Neither Section 173 nor Section 190 lead us to hold that the power of the police to further investigate was exhausted by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence. Practice, convenience and preponderance of authority, permitted repeated investigations on discovery of fresh facts. In our view, notwithstanding that a Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence upon a police report submitted under Section 173 of the 1898 Code, the right of the police to further investigate was not exhausted and the police could exercise such right as often as necessary when fresh information came to light. Where the police desired to make a further investigation, the police could express their regard and respect for the Court by seeking its formal permission to make further investigation."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

35. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in AIR 1964 SC 221, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Bhagwant Kishore Joshi at para 17 ( relevant portion) of the judgement has said as follows:-

"17............................Investigation, in substance, means collection of evidence relating to the commission of the offence. The Investigating Officer is, for this purpose, entitled to question persons who, in this opinion, are able to throw light on the offence which has been committed and is likewise entitled to question the suspect and is entitled to reduce the statements of persons questioned by him to writing. He is also entitled to search the place of the offence and to search other places with the object of seizing articles connected with the offence. No doubt, for this purpose he has to proceed to the spot where the offence was committed and do various other things. But the main object of investigation being to bring home the offence to the offender the essential part of the duties of an investigating officer in this connection is, apart from arresting the offender, to collect all material necessary for establishing the accusation against the offender. Merely making some preliminary enquire upon receipt of information from an anonymous source or a source of doubtful reliability for checking up the correctness of the information does not amount to collection of evidence and so cannot be regarded as investigation............"

[Emphasis supplied by us]

36. In the same context, a reference may also be made to para 48 of judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinay Tyagi Vs. Irshad Ali @ Deepak and others, (2013) 5 SCC 762:-

"48. What ultimately is the aim or significance of the expression "fair and proper investigation" in criminal jurisprudence? It has a twin purpose ; Firstly, the investigation must be unbiased, honest, just and in accordance with law ; secondly, the entire emphasis on a fair investigation has to be to bring out the truth of the case before the court of competent jurisdiction. Once these twin paradigms of fair investigation are satisfied, there will be the least requirement for the court of law to interfere with the investigation, much less quash the same, or transfer it to another agency. Bringing out the truth by fair and investigative means in accordance with law would essentially repel the very basis of an unfair, tainted investigation or cases of false implication. Thus, it is inevitable for a court of law to pass a specific order as to the fate of the investigation, which in its opinion is unfair, tainted and in violation of the settled principles of investigative canons."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

37. We are conscious of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India and another Vs. W.N.Chadha : 1993 Cr.L.J. 859. In the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was considering whether principle of audi alteram partem would apply before issuing ''Letter Rogatory' and whether the Special Judge had applied his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case before issuing ''Letter Rogatory'. While dealing with the first aspect, the following has been held in paras 81, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92 and 98:-

"81. Thus, there is exclusion of the application of audi alteram partem rule to cases where nothing unfair can be inferred by not affording an opportunity to present and meet a case. This rule cannot be applied to defeat the ends of justice or to make the law 'lifeless, absurd, stultifying and self-defeating or plainly contrary to the common sense of the situation' and this rule may be jettisoned in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands.

87. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Indian Explosive Ltd. (Fertiliser Division) Panki Kanpur v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1981) 2 Lab.LJ 159 ; (1981) Lab.ICNDC 148) after referring to the decision in Regina (1972(2)QB 342) (supra) and Norwest Holst Ltd. v. Secretary of State for Trade (1978) 1 Ch. Div. 201 (202) said thus:

"Thus, it has been recognised by Judges of undoubted eminence that a decision on substantive rights of parties is one thing and a mere decision that another body investigate and decide on those substantive rights is quite another, and the principle of hearing is not applicable to the latter class of cases."

88. The principle of law that could be deduced from the above decisions is that it is no doubt true that the fact that a decision, whether a prima facie case has or has not been made out, is not by itself determinative of the exclusion of hearing, but the consideration that the decision was purely an administrative one and a full-fledged enquiry follows is a relevant and indeed a significant - factor in deciding whether at that stage there ought to be hearing which the statute did not expressly grant.

89. Applying the above principle, it may be held that when the investigating officer is not deciding any matter except collecting the materials for ascertaining whether a prima facie case is made out or not and a full enquiry in case of filing a report under S. 173(2) follows in a trial before the Court or Tribunal pursuant to the filing of the report, it cannot be said that at that stage rule of audi alteram partem superimposes an obligation to issue a prior notice and hear the accused which the statute does not expressly recognise. The question is not whether audi alteram partem is implicit, but whether the occasion for its attraction exists at all.

90. Under the scheme of Chap. XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are various provisions under which no prior notice or opportunity of being heard is conferred as a matter of course to an accused person while the proceeding is in the stage of an investigation by a police officer.

91. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335 at 359, (1982 Cr.L.J. 524 at p.539) this Court to which both of us (Ratnavel Pandian and K. Jayachandra Reddy, JJ.) were parties after making reference to the decision of the Privy Council in Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad, AIR 1945 PC 18 and the decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha, 1967 (3) SCR 668 has pointed out that "...the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agencies over which the courts cannot have control and have no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation...."

92. More so, the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under S. 173(2) of the Code or in a proceeding instituted otherwise that on a police report till the process is issued under S. 204 of the Code, as the case may be. Even in cases where cognizance of an offence is taken on a complaint notwithstanding the said offence is triable by a Magistrate or triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the accused has no right to have participation till the process is issued. In case the issue of process is postponed as contemplated under S. 202 of the Code, the accused may attend the subsequent inquiry but cannot participate. There are various judicial pronouncements to this effect but we feel that it is not necessary to recapitulate those decisions. At the same time, we would like to point out that there are certain provisions under the Code empowering the Magistrate to give an opportunity of being heard under certain specified circumstances.

98. If prior notice and an opportunity of hearing are to be given to an accused in every criminal case before taking any action against him, such a procedure would frustrate the proceedings, obstruct the taking of prompt action as law demands, defeat the ends of justice and make the provisions of law relating to the investigation as lifeless, absurd and self-defeating. Further, the scheme of the relevant statutory provisions relating to the procedure of investigation does not attract such a course in the absence of any statutory obligation to the contrary."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

38. From the above, it becomes clear that 'the accused has no right to have any say as regards the manner and method of investigation. Save under certain exceptions under the entire scheme of the Code, the accused has no participation as a matter of right during the course of the investigation of a case instituted on a police report till the investigation culminates in filing of a final report under S. 173(2) of the Code'. In para 90 extracted above from the portion emphasized, it becomes evident that the field of investigation of any cognizable offence is exclusively within the domain of the investigating agency over which the courts cannot have control and has no power to stifle or impinge upon the proceedings in the investigation ''so long as the investigation proceeds in compliance with the provisions relating to investigation'.

39. In the considered opinion of the court, although an accused would have no right of hearing, however, a duty is cast on the investigating agency to conduct fair and impartial investigation. If the investigator receives relevant information in regard to the facts of a case under investigation, be it from the complainant informant, a witness or even the accused, a duty is cast on the said investigating officer to investigate that aspect. In case the investigation is select and one sided, the truth cannot be unearthed. If facts or some evidence/material is brought to the notice of the investigator, on consideration of which it can be demonstrated that the accused is not connected with commission of the crime, surely in such cases, the investigating agency would be obliged to investigate that aspect, in the interest of fair play and purity of administration of criminal justice. For this purpose, the information given by the accused cannot be ignored on the analogy that he has no right to be heard.

40. The judgement rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal Narang's case(supra) ( emphasized portion), also indicates that when it comes to the notice of the investigating agency that a person already accused of an offence has good alibi, it would be a duty of that agency to investigate the genuineness of the plea of alibi.

41. Hypothetically, a person might be accused of committing offence of abetment to commit suicide (Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 107 I.P.C.) by a person living with him. The accused might have in his possession medical evidence to indicate disturbed mental health of the deceased, before the incident of suicide. Surely, such material would be relevant for the investigating agency to investigate and arrive at conclusion whether the accused had committed the offence.

42. Also, it may happen that the name of an accused is given by the complainant for mala fide reasons, however, at the point in time when the offence was committed that person was abroad. In the circumstances, manifest injustice would be caused in prosecuting that person. However, if the investigating officer also considers the version of the accused in that context, entries in the passport can be verified and a conclusion drawn that allegations in the First Information Report to that extent are false. Similarly, a person might not have anything to do in commission of an offence and he might have plausible and acceptable material and evidence to demonstrate that fact, surely it is the duty of the investigating officer to take those evidences/material into account and only thereafter conclude investigation. Objective of investigation is 'to find out the truth'. It is the bounden duty of the investigating officer to find out as to how the incident/transaction/event happened. The investigation is required to be conducted through a scrupulous, unbiased, trustworthy and lawful manner.

43. There might be another situation wherein only the accused might have access to material or evidence relevant for investigation of a crime which would elucidate, clarify and unfold the facts. Surely, investigation in regard to such material would help the investigating agency to come to the right conclusion. Thus, there can be no bar spelt out in law to the accused pointing out the material which is relevant for the investigation of the crime. It would, however, be solely for the investigating agency to draw a conclusion, on completion of investigation.

44. As per the definition of 'investigation', given in earlier part of the judgement and what has been said by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Bhagwant Kishore Joshi's case (supra), it becomes evident that the investigation is not confined to looking into or examining only the case brought out by the complainant/informant. In the said judgement, it has been suggested that The Investigating Officer is, for this purpose, entitled to question persons who, in this opinion, are able to throw light on the offence which has been committed and is likewise entitled to question the suspect and is entitled to reduce the statements of persons questioned by him to writing. Rather there have been a number of cases wherein a complainant, after committing offence, has gone ahead in registering a crime indicating culpability of others. In case scope of investigation is confined to the examination of the story given by the complainant only, it shall cause manifest injustice as the very purpose of investigation would be lost and frustrated. It would result in partial and prejudiced investigation resulting in unfair results.

45. From the definition of 'investigation' provided under Section 2 (h) of CrPC, it is evident that it includes all proceedings for the 'collection of evidence'. The provision does not even envisage that only the version given by the complainant/informant is to be inquired or investigated.

46. Thus, the investigating officer is required to examine the facts of a 'situation' or an event/transaction/crime.

47. It follows that the investigator is required to, at the first instance, investigate the story given by the complainant. In case investigation is not conducted systematically and effectively, and the complainant/informant feels that relevant piece of evidence has not been collected; there is delay in investigation which would cause loss or destruction of evidence; the main accused is being shielded; statements of witnesses have not been truthfully recorded; clues given by the complainant/informant or witnesses are not being followed by the investigating officer, the complainant/informant is constrained on approaching senior police officers for proper and effective investigation. In case no fruitful result is brought, petition is filed in the Courts of law.

48. Likewise, if a person accused of commission of offence knows that he has not committed the offence, and is innocent, however, relevant evidence has not been collected; or has been suppressed by the investigating agency, such accused is aggrieved. In either of the situation, fair play and substantial justice are the victims and the stream of Criminal justice delivery system gets polluted.

49. Even provisions of Section 167 CrPC provide that custody of accused can be taken by police on remand. The purpose of taking a suspect on remand is to question him and confront him with the evidences collected indicating his culpability; or to extract truth from him because needle of suspicion points towards him. The accused, in a given case, might give out facts that are exclusively in his knowledge showing his innocence. Surely, it would be the duty of the investigating agency to investigate that aspect so as to find out the truth. Likewise, when an accused comes to know that he has been implicated, although in malicious attempt of the complainant, he might draw the attention of the Investigating Officer towards evidence or material that shows his innocence.

50. The investigator is required to be sensitive to the rights and predicament of a victim of crime/complainant, as also of the person who is named as accused. In the same scheme of events, although a minor offence might have been committed, however, through tainted, senseless, unreasonable and unintelligent investigation, a major offence might be invoked which might require a sessions trial instead of a magisterial trial. For the said purpose, it is imperative for the investigating officer to consider the evidence collected , in context of the ingredients of the offence, which in the facts and circumstances of the case are required to be invoked. When the needful, as envisaged above, is not done, cases in challenge to investigation are filed before the courts of law.

51. It needs to be mentioned that after completing investigation, the police officer is required to make a clear report in terms of provisions of S. 173 CrPC. The information required to be provided under sub section (2) of S.173 CrPC should be specific in its content, with relevant basis for its conclusion.

   

52. The court is conscious that the investigating agency has vast powers to investigate under chapter XII CrPC. However, after the report is filed by the investigating agency under Sub Section (2) of S. 173 CrPC, it comes up for scrutiny of the court at various stages of the case. The report is required to assist the court in prosecuting the real accused, and not cause harassment to the person(s) who have been wrongly arrayed as accused by the complainant/informant. Likewise it should be ensured by the investigating agency that the real accused do not escape the clutches of the law.

53.  The investigating officers derive their powers to investigate from the CrPC and cannot act whimsically. The police officers are public servants and cannot be tolerated exercising the power arbitrarily. This is particularly so because they have been enjoined with the onerous duty of not only maintaining law and order, but also to ensure that the criminals are tried and convicted by a court of law.  

54. The right of a complainant is precious, in so far he is a victim of crime. However, in case an innocent person is subjected to investigation, and consequent prosecution and trial, not only his life but also the life of his family is adversely affected. His social standing is diminished, because the trial is protracted and all through, that person is an "accused". For all these reasons an investigation is required to be proper, fair, unbiased, effective, systematic,  and

objectively reasoned. The investigating agency is required to be conscious of the fact throughout the investigation that at the stage of investigation, an 'accused is merely a suspect'. In case the investigation is not as expected in law, administration of criminal justice becomes the victim and the affected person is constrained on approaching a court of law.  

55. At the point in time when report under S.173 CrPC is prepared, the investigation is concluded. The investigating officer has collected sufficient evidence indicating commission of offence (S.170 CrPC). The investigating agency knows what evidence has been collected indicating culpability of particular accused, and what offence has been committed by that accused. The report must categorise the offence committed by a particular accused, and the basis for so concluding. The supporting evidence , viz. statements of the witnesses recorded under S. 161 Cr.P.C. and the evidence collected through scientific means is to be appended with the report.

56. It is the right of every accused to know as to on what basis he is being prosecuted, so that he can prepare his defence. The summary of investigation must make all aspects clear, in the interest of transparency, and effective and fair trial.

57. In case the report (charge sheet) is prepared objectively, and summarised as observed herein above, it will assist the court in considering the evidence in context of the ingredients of the offence(s) committed by an accused and frame Charge(s), as required by law. This shall ensure fair, effective and speedy trial.  

58. Likewise when no evidence is found against some accused or evidence collected in the course of investigation indicates he is innocent, and that person/ accused is not forwarded for trial, the report must clearly state the reasons for so concluding. This helps the court to adjudicate, if an application is filed for proceeding against that person/accused. The court can refer to the basis, and reasons recorded by the investigating agency and decide whether to summon the said person as additional accused. This comes to the aid of the court while deciding application, if one is filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C also. This reduces the workload of the court and avoids unnecessary litigation.  

59. Sub-section (8) of Section 173 CrPC provides that further investigation may be conducted in respect of an offence after report has been forwarded to the Magistrate under Sub-section (2) of Section 173 CrPC. On further investigation when the police officer obtains further evidence, either oral or documentary, he is required to forward to the Magistrate a supplementary report or reports regarding such evidence.

60. From the above extracted portion of judgment in Ram Lal Narang's case (supra), it is clear that if charge-sheet/report under Section 173(2) CrPC has been filed before the Magistrate, it is appropriate for the police to inform the Magistrate and seek formal permission to make further investigation, when fresh facts come to light. Likewise, in Vinay Tyagi's case (supra), it has been made clear that the investigating agency should take permission of the Court before conducting 'further investigation' under Section 173(8) CrPC. The following has been said in para 49 in Vinay Tyagi's case (supra):

"49.Now, we may examine another significant aspect which is how the provisions of Section 173(8) have been understood and applied by the courts and investigating agencies. It is true that though there is no specific requirement in the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code to conduct "further investigation" or file supplementary report with the leave of the court, the investigating agencies have not only understood but also adopted it as a legal practice to seek permission of the courts to conduct "further investigation" and file "supplementary report" with the leave of the court. The courts, in some of the decisions, have also taken a similar view. The requirement of seeking prior leave of the court to conduct "further investigation" and/or to file a "supplementary report" will have to be read into, and is a necessary implication of the provisions of Section 173(8) of the Code. The doctrine of contemporanea expositio will fully come to the aid of such interpretation as the matters which are understood and implemented for a long time, and such practice that is supported by law should be accepted as part of the interpretative process."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

61. If the 'report' under S.173(2) CrPC or the 'supplementary report' after further investigation under S 173(8) CrPC filed by the investigating agency is based on evidence/material that is legally not tenable, and/or is unreasonable, biased, illogical, inconsistent, irrational, the complainant, or the accused would have a good reason to approach a court of law so as to challenge the conclusion recorded by the investigating agency.

62. In the same context in case a closure report/final report is to be filed because there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate (S.169 CrPC), the investigating agency is required to file a reasoned report. The basis for saying that offence has not been committed must be stated. The relevant material must be placed on record. By doing this the credibility of the investigating agency is demonstrated, and the court is guided by the reasons given by the agency, when the report is challenged. If the reasons for filing such final report are available on record, the complainant is also informed why the case initiated by him has been cancelled. If however the reasons are not given in such report, or conclusion is based on surmises and conjectures, the complainant is aggrieved and such reports are challenged by way of filing protest petitions.

63. We now intend examining whether such persons who are aggrieved with improper investigation can approach the Magistrate having jurisdiction, with their grievances.

64. The question whether such persons (who are aggrieved that fair and proper investigation is not being conducted) can be relegated to the judicial magistrate for redressal of their grievance no longer remains res integra. The following has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (2) SCC 409in paras 17, 18, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29 and 31:-

"17. 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.

18. It is well settled that when a power is given to an authority to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without special mention, every power and every control the denial of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary for its execution.

24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the police station concerned to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision.

25.We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, first under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3).

27.As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

28.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.

29. In Union of India v. Prakash P. Hinduja (SCC vide para 13) it has been observed by this Court that a Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However, in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the police station concerned, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same (though he should not himself investigate).

31.No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by CBI vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan, 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."

[Emphasis supplied by us]

65. Other than the jurisdiction under the implied powers, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), even the statute position and the scheme of Chapter XII of the CrPC indicates that a Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction is involved at every stage of investigation, by mandate of law.

66. From the extracted provisions from Chapter XII CrPC in the earlier part of this judgement, it becomes evident that a Judicial Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of offence is seized of the progress in investigation of the offence.

67. On receipt of information in regard to commission of cognizable offence, officer incharge of a police station is required to forthwith send a report to a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance (Section 157 CrPC). On receipt of such report, the Magistrate may direct an investigation, or himself hold a preliminary inquiry (Section 159 CrPC). Provisions of Sections 165 and 166 CrPC require information to be sent to the Magistrate in regard to search and seizure.

68. Under the provisions of Section 167 CrPC, the Magistrate has the power to give custody (remand) of an accused to the police for investigation within the limitations provided under the provision. Thereafter the Magistrate has the power to send the accused in judicial custody, or order otherwise.

69. In case the evidence is deficient, as envisaged under section 169 CrPC, the accused may be released, however, subject to the condition that he may be required to appear before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and to try the accused or commit him for trial.

70. Provisions of Section 170 CrP.C. require an accused to be forwarded to the Magistrate when sufficient evidence is collected in the course of investigation. After investigation is concluded the investigating agency is required to file a comprehensive report in terms of provisions of S.173(2) of the CrPC in the court of the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of that offence. As held in earlier part of the judgement, the conclusions drawn by the agency need to be based on material that can be translated into legal evidence indicating clearly as to what offence has been committed, by which accused. Likewise the report must clearly convey the reasons of innocence in regard to a particular person who had been named as accused, however in the course of investigation no incriminating material is collected against that person.

71. As noted in earlier part of the judgement , in case some new evidence is brought to the notice of the investigating agency, after filing of the report under section 173(2) CrPC, further investigation can be undertaken under section 173(8) CrPC, however after taking permission of the Magistrate.

72. Likewise if the Complainant is not satisfied with the investigation, he may file an application, while indicating the infirmity in the investigation. The Magistrate on considering the report filed by the investigating agency, in context of the application for further investigation, may allow the application or order otherwise, as the cause of justice demands.

73. From the above it becomes evident that the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence is involved right from inception of the case on registration of First Information Report, till filing of report on conclusion of investigation [S.173(2) CrPC], or even till supplementary report is filed after further investigation [S.173(8) CrPC] is concluded. At every stage the case diaries are produced before the Magistrate. The Magistrate, through the case diaries, is made aware of the progress in investigation. The Magistrate adjudicates and allows or declines police custody/police remand of accused in the course of investigation under section 167(2) CrPC. The Magistrate is therefore duly equipped with the information in regard to an investigation being conducted under his jurisdiction. The Magistrate can issue effective directions for qualitative investigation.

74. We add a note of caution that a Magistrate has no power to direct filing of chargesheet or to file a closure report/final report (vide Abhinandan Jha and others vs. Dinesh Mishra, AIR 1968 SC 117 at paras 17 and 20). The Magistrate has no jurisdiction to steer the investigation so as to ask the investigating agency to draw a particular conclusion. The Magistrate can only issue directions so as to ensure proper, effective, speedy and fair investigation, in the context detailed above.

75. The applicant who approaches the Magistrate in context of investigation also has the obligation to file application with specific plea indicating improper or unfair investigation. In case statement of a particular witness has not been fairly recorded, the particulars are required to be given. In case a particular clue given by a witness is not followed, relevant facts are required to be pointed out. In case a particular evidence is likely to be lost or destroyed by efflux of time, particulars are required to be given. In case the accused has irrefutable evidence to show his innocence, that evidence is required to be brought out through application, alongwith material. These are some of the circumstances which may arise, and are not exhaustive. However,an application with vague allegation that improper investigation is being conducted; or investigation is unfair because of 'influence' , cannot possibly invite an effective and implementable order which will advance the cause of proper investigation.

76. In view of the provisions of law noticed above, judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, as extracted above and the observations made above, we are of the considered opinion that an applicant has the remedy of filing an application before the Magistrate having jurisdiction, to seek proper investigation. The Magistrate has the power to issue directions to the police officers so as to ensure proper, systematic and fair investigation. The law confers an obligation on the investigating agency to sincerely abide by the directions issued by the Magistrate having jurisdiction.

77. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we deem it just and proper to relegate the petitioner to the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction, to file a specific application to seek proper investigation.

78. With the above observations/directions, the writ petition is disposed of.