Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) includes FIR direction and monitored investigation; CBI inquiry remains exceptional.

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure confers wide implied power on a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR, require a proper investigation, and monitor the investigation at the pre-cognizance stage; this power is independent of further investigation under Section 173(8). Where statutory remedies exist, the aggrieved person should ordinarily first approach the police hierarchy, then the Magistrate under Section 156(3), or proceed by complaint under Section 200, and High Court writ or inherent jurisdiction should not usually be used to bypass those remedies. A CBI investigation is an exceptional remedy available only in rare cases on a prima facie showing of necessity; on the material noted, no such basis was found.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate, acting under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has the power to direct registration of an FIR, order proper investigation, and monitor such investigation. (ii) Whether the High Court should ordinarily entertain a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking registration or investigation of an offence, and whether a CBI inquiry can be ordered in the present case.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate, acting under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, has the power to direct registration of an FIR, order proper investigation, and monitor such investigation.

Analysis: Section 156(3) is construed broadly as an effective supervisory power over police investigation at the pre-cognizance stage. The power to order investigation necessarily includes the incidental authority to direct registration of an FIR where cognizable offences are disclosed, to require a proper investigation where the police has failed in that duty, and to monitor the investigation to ensure it is conducted properly. This power is independent and does not curtail the investigating officer's power of further investigation under Section 173(8).

Conclusion: The Magistrate does have implied power under Section 156(3) to direct registration of an FIR, require a proper investigation, and monitor the same.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should ordinarily entertain a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking registration or investigation of an offence, and whether a CBI inquiry can be ordered in the present case.

Analysis: Where statutory remedies exist, the aggrieved person should first approach the police hierarchy under Section 154(3) and Section 36, then the Magistrate under Section 156(3), or file a complaint under Section 200. The High Court should ordinarily not encourage bypassing these remedies. A CBI investigation is an extraordinary direction, justified only in rare and exceptional cases on a prima facie showing of necessity. On the material before it, including prior police and Army inquiries, no such prima facie case was disclosed.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in refusing to order a CBI inquiry, and the writ petition was not a fit case for interference.

Final Conclusion: The decision affirms that the proper statutory route for grievance against non-registration or inadequate investigation lies through the police hierarchy and the Magistrate, while CBI investigation remains an exceptional judicial remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 confers wide implied powers on the Magistrate to secure a proper investigation, but writ or inherent jurisdiction should ordinarily not be used to bypass the alternative statutory remedies, and CBI investigation may be ordered only in rare and exceptional cases on a prima facie basis.

---