- In Madhav Singh v. the State of UP (2021), the Hon'ble Allahabad HC observed that after granting an order under Section 156 (3) CrPC, the Magistrate cannot back out of the matter, and the Magistrate is responsible for ensuring that the inquiry is conducted impartially and fairly.
- In this instance, the Hon'ble HC was dealing with a Section 482 CrPC plea under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B, and 409 IPC, with the aggrieved party claiming that his case was not being investigated properly. The applicant further requested that the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Mathura be instructed to send the statement on affidavit and other documentary evidence filed on his behalf to the Investigating Officer and guarantee an unbiased and fair investigation. Furthermore, it was claimed that even though the complainant's and witnesses' affidavits were filed with the CJM, Mathura, with a request to send them to the Investigating Officer, the request was denied in an order dated September on the ground that the informant himself must produce his affidavit before the competent authority under section 173(2) CrPC.
- The essential sections to this case are mentioned below:
- Section 420 of the IPC covers cheating and dishonestly rendering the delivery of property.
- Section 467 oversees the income tax remedy for leases with prepaid rent.
- Section 468 applies to cases involving forgery for the purpose of cheating.
- Section 471 of IPC articulates regarding using a forged document as genuine.
- Section 120(b) provides retribution for criminal conspiracy.
- Section 409 of IPC deals with a criminal breach of trust by a public worker, a banker, a merchant, or an agent, among other things.
- Section 482 of the CrPC talks about limiting or affecting the High Court's inherent rights to issue orders that may be required to carry out any necessary action made under this Code to prevent abuse of the judicial process or otherwise ensure the interests of the interests’ justice.
- Section 156 (3) of the CrPC, 1973 states that only in the case of a cognizable offense can the Magistrate use the section, as mentioned earlier, to instruct the police to begin an investigation.
- An instance in which the Court was permitted to use Section 156 (3) CrPCwas the case of Abhinandan Jha and others vs. Dinesh Mishra 1967(4) ACC 306 SC. Here the Hon'ble Apex Court decided that the Magistrate is not obligated to accept the report filed by the police under section 173(2) CrPC if he disagrees with the police's opinion.
- In another similar case, Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of UP and others 2008 (60) ACC 689, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "The Magistrate's power to order further investigation under section 156(3) is separate from the Investigating Officer's power to continue investigating the case even after submitting his report under section 173(8). As a result, even after the police present their final report, the Magistrate might order the inquiry to be reopened." The Hon'ble Apex Court had reviewed this issue in several instances, and it consistently maintained that the Magistrate has the authority to issue an order for further inquiry on the final report.
- With respect to the aforementioned cases, the Hon'ble HC stated that the Magistrate could have forwarded the affidavits filed on behalf of the applicant to the Investigating Officer if the complainant had alleged that the IO had not recorded the statements of the complainant and witnesses.
- Therefore, the Hon'ble HC rejected the CJM's decision, stating that the Magistrate cannot withdraw from the case after granting an order under Section 156 (3) CrPC, and instructed the CJM to send the applicant's affidavits to the Investigating Officer and guarantee a fair inquiry.
"Loved reading this piece by Sharmishta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
