{"id":14403,"date":"2024-09-24T09:14:07","date_gmt":"2024-09-24T03:44:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/?p=14403"},"modified":"2024-09-24T09:15:20","modified_gmt":"2024-09-24T03:45:20","slug":"fir-%e0%ae%aa%e0%af%8b%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%9f%e0%af%81-%e0%ae%aa%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%b1%e0%ae%95%e0%af%81-%e0%ae%8e%e0%ae%a8%e0%af%8d%e0%ae%a4-%e0%ae%a8%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%b5%e0%ae%9f%e0%ae%bf%e0%ae%95-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/?p=14403","title":{"rendered":"FIR \u0baa\u0bcb\u0b9f\u0bcd\u0b9f\u0bc1 \u0baa\u0bbf\u0bb1\u0b95\u0bc1 \u0b8e\u0ba8\u0bcd\u0ba4 \u0ba8\u0b9f\u0bb5\u0b9f\u0bbf\u0b95\u0bcd\u0b95\u0bc8\u0baf\u0bc1\u0bae\u0bcd \u0b87\u0bb2\u0bcd\u0bb2\u0bbe\u0bae\u0bb2\u0bcd \u0b87\u0bb0\u0bc1\u0b95\u0bcd\u0b95\u0bc1\u0bae\u0bcd\u0baa\u0bcb\u0ba4\u0bc1 \u0b95\u0bc0\u0bb4\u0bcd \u0ba8\u0bc0\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0bae\u0ba9\u0bcd\u0bb1\u0ba4\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0bb2\u0bc7 \u0bae\u0ba9\u0bc1 \u0baa\u0bcb\u0b9f\u0bc1\u0bb5\u0ba4\u0bc1 \u0b8e\u0baa\u0bcd\u0baa\u0b9f\u0bbf?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe loading=\"lazy\" title=\"FIR \u0baa\u0bcb\u0b9f\u0bcd\u0b9f\u0bc1 \u0baa\u0bbf\u0bb1\u0b95\u0bc1 \u0b8e\u0ba8\u0bcd\u0ba4 \u0ba8\u0b9f\u0bb5\u0b9f\u0bbf\u0b95\u0bcd\u0b95\u0bc8\u0baf\u0bc1\u0bae\u0bcd \u0b87\u0bb2\u0bcd\u0bb2\u0bbe\u0bae\u0bb2\u0bcd \u0b87\u0bb0\u0bc1\u0b95\u0bcd\u0b95\u0bc1\u0bae\u0bcd\u0baa\u0bcb\u0ba4\u0bc1 \u0b95\u0bc0\u0bb4\u0bcd \u0ba8\u0bc0\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0bae\u0ba9\u0bcd\u0bb1\u0ba4\u0bcd\u0ba4\u0bbf\u0bb2\u0bc7 \u0bae\u0ba9\u0bc1 \u0baa\u0bcb\u0b9f\u0bc1\u0bb5\u0ba4\u0bc1 \u0b8e\u0baa\u0bcd\u0baa\u0b9f\u0bbf?\" width=\"640\" height=\"360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/-5_su9FKPrQ?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA<br>CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION<br>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2011<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER \u2026.. APPELLANT(S)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">VERSUS<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER \u2026..RESPONDENT(S)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">O R D E R<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by the<br>Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No.<br>11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the first respondent before us,<br>directs the Inspector of Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar,<br>Trichy to register a case, that is, First Information Report, on the<br>basis of the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and after investigation file<br>the final report in accordance with law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"2\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Aggrieved, Mr. M. Subramaniam and Mr. R.V. Prasanna<br>Venkatesan who were not even made parties to the aforesaid<br>Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 11620 of 2009 have filed the present<br>petition under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. By order<br>dated 12.03.2010, the permission to file Special Leave Petition<br>was granted and notice was issued. On considering the facts and<br>Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 1 of 8<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">assertions made, it was directed that in the meanwhile operation<br>of the impugned judgment would be stayed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"3\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>In spite of the aforesaid stay, it appears that the Inspector of<br>Police, City Crime Branch, K.K. Nagar, Trichy on 05.04.2010 had<br>registered an FIR in Crime No. 7 of 2010 under Sections 403, 406,<br>408, 418(i), 420, 424 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860<br>against the two appellants and three others. During the course of<br>the hearing before us, the appellants have produced a copy of the<br>order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the Madurai Bench of Madras<br>High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No. 5195 of 2010 and M.P.(MD)<br>No. 1 of 2010 filed by the appellants and three others against the<br>two respondents. By this order, the petition was partly allowed<br>with the direction that the aforesaid case registered as Crime No.<br>7 of 2010 will be treated as closed. In the event of this Court<br>dismissing the present S.L.P., the police would proceed with the<br>investigation in Crime No. 7 of 2010 and take it to its logical<br>conclusion by either filing charge-sheet or a final closure report as<br>the case may be. It stands specifically directed that the police<br>would not proceed further with the investigation till the decision of<br>the present S.L.P.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>As per the appellants, the first respondent was one of the trustees<br>in ADS Educational Trust which was founded in 1985 for the<br>Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 2 of 8<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">purposes of giving and promoting education. The trust had<br>started Sri Angalamman College of Engineering and Technology<br>at Trichy in 1987. The first and second appellants before us are<br>the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman respectively of this College.<br>The appellants have submitted that the first respondent has no<br>locus standi to file a criminal complaint and the complaint is<br>intended only to wreak vengeance in view of the civil dispute,<br>which is pending between the parties. The first respondent, it is<br>alleged, was removed from service as she was found guilty of<br>fraud and forgery.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"5\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>While it is not possible to accept the contention of the appellants<br>on the question of locus standi, we are inclined to accept the<br>contention that the High Court could not have directed the<br>registration of an FIR with a direction to the police to investigate<br>and file the final report in view of the judgment of this Court in<br>Sakiri Vasu v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others1<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">in which it<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">has been inter alia held as under:<br>\u201c11. In this connection we would like to state that if a<br>person has a grievance that the police station is not<br>registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he<br>can approach the Superintendent of Police under<br>Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even<br>if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense<br>that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even<br>after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is<br>open to the aggrieved person to file an application<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">1<br>(2008) 2 SCC 409<br>Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 3 of 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned<br>Magistrate concerned. If such an application under<br>Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the<br>Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also<br>can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case<br>where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper<br>investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under<br>the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure<br>a proper investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"12\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan this Court<br>observed: (SCC p. 631, para 11)<br>\u201c11. The clear position therefore is that any<br>Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of<br>the offence, can order investigation under Section<br>156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to<br>examine the complainant on oath because he<br>was not taking cognizance of any offence therein.<br>For the purpose of enabling the police to start<br>investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct<br>the police to register an FIR. There is nothing<br>illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR<br>involves only the process of entering the<br>substance of the information relating to the<br>commission of the cognizable offence in a book<br>kept by the officer in charge of the police station<br>as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a<br>Magistrate does not say in so many words while<br>directing investigation under Section 156(3) of the<br>Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the<br>duty of the officer in charge of the police station to<br>register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence<br>disclosed by the complainant because that police<br>officer could take further steps contemplated in<br>Chapter XII of the Code only thereafter.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar<br>Singh v. State of Delhi (JT vide para 17). We would<br>further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered<br>and even if the police has made the investigation, or is<br>actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved<br>person feels is not proper, such a person can approach<br>the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, and if the<br>Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper<br>investigation and take other suitable steps and pass<br>such order(s) as he thinks necessary for ensuring a<br>proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate<br>enjoys under Section 156(3) CrPC.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 4 of 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"14\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Section 156(3) states:<br>\u201c156. (3) Any Magistrate empowered under<br>Section 190 may order such an investigation as<br>abovementioned.\u201d<br>The words \u201cas abovementioned\u201d obviously refer to<br>Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by<br>the officer in charge of the police station.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 156(3) provides for a check by the<br>Magistrate on the police performing its duties under<br>Chapter XII CrPC. In cases where the Magistrate finds<br>that the police has not done its duty of investigating the<br>case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can<br>issue a direction to the police to do the investigation<br>properly, and can monitor the same.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The power in the Magistrate to order further<br>investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent<br>power and does not affect the power of the<br>investigating officer to further investigate the case even<br>after submission of his report vide Section 173(8).<br>Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the<br>investigation even after the police submits the final<br>report, vide State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC :<br>AIR para 19).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough<br>to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are<br>necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it<br>includes the power to order registration of an FIR and<br>of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is<br>satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done,<br>or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3)<br>CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very<br>wide and it will include all such incidental powers as<br>are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>It is well settled that when a power is given to an<br>authority to do something it includes such incidental or<br>implied powers which would ensure the proper doing of<br>that thing. In other words, when any power is expressly<br>granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the<br>grant, even without special mention, every power and<br>every control the denial of which would render the<br>grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act confers<br>jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing<br>Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 5 of 8<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">all such acts or employ such means as are essentially<br>necessary for its execution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"6\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v.<br>Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others2<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">, in which it is observed.<br>\u201c2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.,<br>that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not<br>been registered by the police, or having been<br>registered, proper investigation is not being done, then<br>the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the<br>High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of<br>India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under<br>Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under<br>Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is,<br>prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be<br>registered, or if it has already been registered, he can<br>direct proper investigation to be done which includes in<br>his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending<br>change of the investigating officer, so that a proper<br>investigation is done in the matter. We have said this<br>in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in<br>this country is that the High Courts have been flooded<br>with writ petitions praying for registration of the first<br>information report or praying for a proper investigation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"3\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>We are of the opinion that if the High Courts<br>entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded<br>with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any<br>other work except dealing with such writ petitions.<br>Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of<br>his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate<br>concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does<br>so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is<br>satisfied, registration of the first information report and<br>also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he<br>can also monitor the investigation.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case,<br>the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be<br>sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate<br>concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation<br>into the alleged offence under Section 156(3) CrPC<br>and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend<br>to the SSP\/SP concerned a change of the investigating<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">2<br>(2016) 6 SCC 277<br>Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 6 of 8<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The<br>Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though<br>he cannot himself investigate (as investigation is the<br>job of the police). Parties may produce any material<br>they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The<br>learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any<br>observation in the impugned order of the High Court.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"7\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>We are also surprised and concerned at the registration of the FIR<br>in Crime No. 7 of 2010, notwithstanding, the stay order passed by<br>this Court while issuing notice by which the operation of the<br>impugned judgment was directed to remain stayed.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>In these circumstances, we would allow the present appeal and<br>set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR<br>and investigation into the matter by the police. At the same time,<br>our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first<br>respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant<br>to the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and the police on being<br>satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to<br>register an FIR. It is also open to the first respondent to approach<br>the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and<br>necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to<br>take steps to protect their interest.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>We would clarify that this Court has not expressed any opinion on<br>merits and whether or not the complaint discloses any criminal<br>offence. The only clarification that is required is that a civil dispute<br>Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 7 of 8<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">should not be given the colour of a criminal offence, and at the<br>same time mere pendency of the civil proceeding is not a good<br>ground and justification to not register and investigate an FIR if a<br>criminal offence has been committed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ol start=\"10\" class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Recording the aforesaid, the present appeal is partly allowed.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026, J.<br>(N.V. RAMANA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026, J.<br>(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026\u2026., J.<br>(SANJIV KHANNA)<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">NEW DELHI;<br>MARCH 20, 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011 Page 8 of 8<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2011 M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER \u2026.. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER \u2026..RESPONDENT(S) O R D E R The impugned order dated 06.01.2010 passed by theMadurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. (MD) No.11620 of 2009 filed by S. Janaki, the [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[481],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14403","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-481"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14403","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14403"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14403\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14404,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14403\/revisions\/14404"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14403"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14403"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/service-public.in\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14403"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}