Limits on CBI investigation orders: Magistrates cannot invoke Section 156(3) for CBI probes absent exceptional need or investigative failure.

Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not authorise a Magistrate to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and its scope is limited to directions to the officer in charge of a police station. Where an FIR had already been registered and the matter was a routine theft case without special facts showing complexity, investigative failure, or other exceptional need, a CBI direction was unwarranted and unsustainable. The High Court also erred in treating the petition as not maintainable, since a remedy under Section 397 was available, and the adverse criticism, inquiry direction, and punitive costs were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a Magistrate could direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the first information report had already been registered. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in treating the petition as not maintainable, criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation for approaching it, and imposing costs.

Issue (i): Whether a Magistrate could direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the first information report had already been registered.

Analysis: Section 156(3) empowers a Magistrate to direct investigation by the officer in charge of a police station and its scope cannot be enlarged to require investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation. Since the matter had already resulted in registration of the first information report, that provision had no application. The circumstances disclosed a routine theft matter, and in the absence of special facts showing complexity, inability, or laxity in investigation, entrusting the matter to the Central Bureau of Investigation was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The direction to the Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the matter was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in treating the petition as not maintainable, criticising the Central Bureau of Investigation for approaching it, and imposing costs.

Analysis: The remedy under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was available, and there was no legal bar to approaching the High Court. The record did not justify adverse criticism against the Central Bureau of Investigation or the imposition of costs. The High Court erred in treating the approach as improper and in visiting the applicant with punitive costs and directions for inquiry.

Conclusion: The criticism and costs imposed by the High Court were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The orders directing Central Bureau of Investigation investigation and the consequential adverse observations and costs were annulled, and the appellant succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 does not authorise a Magistrate to direct investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, and such direction is justified only in exceptional cases showing special need, complexity, or investigative failure.

---