2001 (1) TMI 962 - SC - Indian Laws

Magistrate's Authority to Order Police Investigation Upheld by Supreme Court

SURESHCHAND JAIN Versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANOTHER

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision upholding the Chief Judicial Magistrate's authority to direct the police to register an FIR and ... - Issues:1. Legality of magistrate's order directing police to register FIR and conduct investigation in response to a complaint.2. Power of magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.3. Examination of complainant on oath before proceeding with any other step.4. Comparison of investigation under Section 156 and Section 202 of the Code.5. Reference to previous judgments by the Supreme Court regarding magistrate's power to order police investigation.Issue 1: Legality of Magistrate's Order:The case involved a complaint filed by the second respondent, alleging offenses under the Prized Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Prohibition) Act and the Indian Penal Code. The Chief Judicial Magistrate directed the police to register an FIR and initiate an investigation. The appellant challenged this order through revision before the Sessions Court and invoking the High Court's inherent powers, but both attempts were unsuccessful. The appellant contended that the magistrate's order should have been overturned in the interest of justice.Issue 2: Power of Magistrate under Section 156(3):The High Court of Madhya Pradesh upheld the magistrate's power to order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in a private complaint case, emphasizing the need for investigation in the public interest. The Supreme Court clarified that a magistrate can direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance of the offense, as this step enables the police to initiate the investigation process.Issue 3: Examination of Complainant on Oath:The appellant's counsel argued that the magistrate should have examined the complainant on oath before proceeding with any other step. However, the Supreme Court explained that such examination is not mandatory under Section 156(3) as the magistrate is not taking cognizance of the offense at that stage but merely ordering an investigation.Issue 4: Comparison of Investigations under Sections 156 and 202:The Court differentiated between investigations under Sections 156 and 202 of the Code. Section 156 empowers the police to investigate cognizable offenses without a magistrate's order, while Section 202 allows a magistrate to direct an investigation to decide whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed further. The investigation under Section 156 ends with the police report under Section 173, and the magistrate's role is to facilitate the initial stages of the investigation.Issue 5: Reference to Previous Supreme Court Judgments:The Supreme Court referenced previous judgments to clarify the magistrate's power to order police investigation. The Court highlighted that the magistrate can direct the police to register an FIR under Section 156(3) before taking cognizance of the offense, as established in earlier Supreme Court decisions. The Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision upholding the magistrate's authority in ordering the police investigation.This detailed analysis of the legal judgment addresses the issues surrounding the legality of the magistrate's order, the power of the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code, the examination of the complainant on oath, the comparison of investigations under different sections of the Code, and the reference to previous Supreme Court judgments establishing the magistrate's authority to direct police investigation.