Magistrate Can't Direct Investigation Mechanically, Application Of Mind Must: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has said that direction for investigation under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) cannot be issued by a Magistrate mechanically and must be given only after application of mind.

Justice Rajnish Bhatnagar observed that a Magistrate is not bound to direct investigation by the police even if all allegations made in the complaint disclose ingredients of a cognizable offence.

Emphasizing that each case has to be viewed depending upon the facts and circumstances, the court noted:

“In the facts and circumstances of a given case, the Magistrate may take a decision that the complainant can prove the facts alleged in the complaint without the assistance of the police. In such cases, the Magistrate may proceed with the complaint under Section 200 of the Code and examine witnesses produced by the complainant. The Magistrate ought to direct investigation by the police if the evidence is required to be collected with the assistance of the police.”

Section 156(3) of CrPC grants power to any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 to order an investigation to be conducted by the police.

Justice Bhatnagar made the observations while dealing with a man's plea seeking registration of FIR by the Delhi Police against his neighbors. It was his case that he was cheated by the accused persons.

The Metropolitan Magistrate refused to direct investigation in the case and rejected the application moved by the petitioner. The order was upheld by the Sessions judge in revision.

Rejecting the instant plea, Justice Bhatnagar opined that all the facts and evidence were within the knowledge of the petitioner, which he can adduce during inquiry conducted by the Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 200 of CrPC.

“Therefore, this Court is of the view that no special case has been made out for this Court to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no miscarriage of justice or illegality in the approach adopted by the two courts below nor any such has been pointed by the petitioner,” the court said.

Counsel for Petitioner: Advocate Jai Subhash Thakur

Counsels for Respondents: Standing Counsel Sanjay Lao with Advocates Priyam Aggarwal, Shivesh Kaushik and Abhinav Kumar Arya

Case Title: ANJURI KUMARI v. THE STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS., W.P.(CRL) 1210/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1198

Click Here To Read Order