CASE ANALYSIS OF SAKIRI VASU V. STATE OF U.P.

BY

SHIVANI SHUKLA

INTERN

1ST YEAR,

FACULTY OF LAW,

UNIVERSITY OF DELHI.

Mob- 7007296023

Email- [email protected]
SAKIRI VASU CASE AND IT’S IMPACT ON INDIAN SOCIETY

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Information in cognizable cases in accordance to Section 154 (1) Cr.P.C elucidates that

any data pertaining to to the commission of a cognizable offence if given orally to an officer
in charge of a police station, shall be decreased to writing via himself or underneath his direction,
and all such information, whether or not in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be
signed through the man or woman who furnishes it.
Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C explicates that a complaint shall be given in writing or via submit to the
Superintendent of Police if any individual is aggrieved with the aid of a refusal on the section of
an officer in charge of a police station to document the data referred to in subsection.
The Superintendent of Police, upon receipt of such grievance if cosy that
such information discloses the fee of a cognizable offence, shall both look at the case himself or
direct an investigation to be made by using any police officer subordinate to him, in the
manner furnished by using this Code.
Judicial magistrate’s strength to look at cognizable case as given below Section 156(3) entails
that any Magistrate empowered below Section 190 can also order an investigation by a police
officer performing its obligations below Chapter XII of Cr.P.C.
The above-mentioned sections spotlight the chronology/series of treatments reachable to a
person. Firstly, filing a complaint before the police official and secondly, in the tournament of
failure of the registration of the criticism with the aid of the official, one shall strategy the
SSP/SP for the stated purpose. However, if the criticism is now not registered even after that,
then the subsequent remedy is to searching for assist from the Judicial Magistrate.
Hon’ble Apex Court citing a number judgments has clarified the right approach for registration
of FIR.
FACTS IN ISSUE

The dead body of Major S. Ravishankar, son of the appellant was located on 23.8.2003 at

Mathura Railway Station. He used to be a Major in the Indian Army. The G.R.P, Mathura
investigated the matter and concluded that the loss of life was once due to an accident or suicide.
The Army officers at Mathura also held two Courts of Inquiry and each instances submitted
the report that the deceased Major S. Ravishankar had committed suicide at the railway track at
Mathura junction.
Father of deceased claimed that it must to be murder and motive of homicide was once that he
knew about corruption in the Mathura unit of the army and he made oral complaints about it to
his superiors and also to his father. He filed writ petition in Allahabad High
Court underneath Article 226 of the Indian Constitution which was brushed aside with the aid
of the impugned judgment.
The petitioner (appellant herein) prayed in the writ petition that the matter be ordered to be
investigated with the aid of the Central Bureau of Investigation (“CBI”). Since his
prayer was rejected by means of the High Court, through ‘Special Leave Petition‘under Article
136, matter reached to the Supreme Court.

G
P
R
i
V
w
e
r
e
h
t
i
(
Y
M
R
E
H
T
A
F
n
i
e
d
r
a
g R
g
a
n
e
c
S
d
r
u
M
(
i t
e
o
)
r
h
t
a
e
d
s
)
e
d
u
i
c
Magisterial Vigil during Investigation.

In chronological order, the position of magistrate in investigation can be understood in terms of

these 5 tiers:
Stage – I – Soon after the registration of FIR
Stage – II – In instances where the arrest is affected by way of the Investigating officer, on his
production earlier than the courtroom and while determining the question of the
validity of arrest want for further custody - Judicial or Police.
Stage – III- Magisterial interventions while figuring out functions for recording of
statement(s) u/s 164 of the Cr.P.C, check identification parades, applications seeking
behavior of narco-analysis, taking of handwriting/signature specimen, etc.
Stage – IV – Monitoring of investigation.
Stage – V – Further investigation, post-filing of police record u/s 173 of the Cr.P.C

Abstract

Supreme Court brushed aside the appeal and held that individual can demand

for appropriate investigation but can't demand investigation by means of distinctive agency.
Supreme Court additionally advised that person must first of all use alternative redress   
accessible in criminal regulation and if he is no longer at ease then he need to approach to High
Court.

Issues and Answer

There are following issues are concerned in this case –

Issue (1) Is a individual entitle to reach High Court besides arduous alternative remedies
accessible in Cr.P.C.?
Answer. He is entitled however such matters should no longer be promoted. If there is
an other remedy the High Court need not to commonly interfere. In this case, alternative 
case, alternative redress in case of non-registration of FIR have been discussed.
Issue (2) - Is a sufferer can demand investigation by way of exclusive agency?
Answer – A sufferer can demand for ideal and rapid investigation. But he can't demand
investigation with the aid of special organization inclusive of CBI.
Issue (3) - Is Magistrate empowers underneath section 156(3) to pass an order for investigation
by exclusive organization together with CBI?
Answer – Magistrate is no longer empowered to pass an order for investigation through CBI.
Referring to Section 156 (1), which contemplates investigation by means of the officer
in charge of the Police Station as a substitute than any different investigating authority.
Issue (4) - Is Magistrate empowers under section 156(3) to omit an order for registration of FIR?
Answer - Magistrate is empowered under section 156(3) to omit an order for registration of FIR.
Reason of this is utility of ‘Doctrine of Implied Power‘.
Issue (5) - Is Magistrate empowered under part 156(3) to omit an order for re-opening of
investigation after submission of ‘Final Report‘?
Answer – Yes, Magistrate is empowered under section 156(3) to skip an order for re-opening of
investigation even after submission of ‘Final Report.’

Ratio of Judgment

There are following ratio of this judgment -

(1) Alternative remedies - In this case Hon‘ble Justice Markandey Katju said, ―If a man or
woman has a complaint that his FIR has no longer been registered with the aid of the police
station under section 154(1) his first restorative is to approach the Superintendent of
Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C.
If regardless of drawing close the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36
his grievance nevertheless persists, then he can approach a Magistrate underneath Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C. rather of speeding to the High Court through way of a writ petition or a
petition below Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further restorative of filing a
criminal grievance under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
It is actual that alternative remedy is no longer an absolute bar to a writ petition, however it is
equally properly settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should no
longer commonly interfere. He can approach High Court both through section 482 or with writ
petition underneath article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Alternate remedy in case of non-registration of FIR under Sec. 154(1)

Sec. 154(1) (Officer in charge of a police station)

Sec. 154(3) (Superintendent of Police)

Sec. 36 (Police Officers superior to O.P.S e.g. DIG, IG, DGP)

Sec. 156(3) (Judicial Magistrate)

Sec. 200 (Judicial Magistrate)

Sec. 482 (Inherent Power of H.C.)

Art. 226 (Writ Jurisdiction of High Court. Writ u/ 32 is also possible)

(2) No power of Magistrate to omit order for investigation through CBI - No doubt the
Magistrate cannot order under section 156 (3) investigation through the CBI. But Supreme Court
or the High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order investigation through the
CBI.

(3) Demand for investigation through Particular agency- A victim can demand for ideal and

speedy investigation. But he can't demand investigation through exclusive organization which
include CBI. The aggrieved individual has no right to claim the offence be investigated
through any specific organization of his choice.

(4) Doctrine of implied power - It is well-settled that when a strength is given to an authority to

do some thing it consists of such incidental or implied powers which would make
certain the ideal doing of that thing. In different words, when any power is expressly granted 
through the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant, even without distinctive mention, 
each and every power and each and every control the denial of which would render
the grant itself ineffective.
Example- The power conferred on the Magistrate underneath Section 125 Cr.P.C. to grant
maintenance to the spouse implies the power to provide intervening time maintenance 
throughout the pendency of the proceeding, in any other case she might also starve in the course
of this period.

(5) Power to skip an order for registration and desirable investigation – Section 156(3)

Cr.P.C. is broad enough to consist of all such powers in a Magistrate which
are essential for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration
of an F.I.R. and of ordering a desirable investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that
a suitable investigation has no longer been done, or is not being executed via the police.
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., even though temporarily worded is very extensive and it
will encompass all such incidental powers as are essential for making
sure a appropriate investigation.

(6) Power of Magistrate to take a look at the investigation - Section 156(3) offers for

a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties below Chapter XII Cr.P.C.
In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has no longer carried out its responsibility of
investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police
to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

(7) Relation between section 156(3) and section 173(8) - The power in the Magistrate to order

further investigation below Section 156(3) is an unbiased power, and does not have an effect
on the power of the investigating officer to similarly inspect the case even after submission of his
report beneath Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation
even after the police submits the closing report.

Conclusion
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.

Doctrine of Updating Construction

According to this doctrine law need to be interpreted in such a way which should be in

accordance to moving society. Hon‘ble Justice Bhagwati in case of National Textile Workers
Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan1 said ―Law can't stand still; it need to alternate with
the changing social concepts and values. Law need to continuously be on the go adapting itself to
the fast-changing society and not lag behind.‖
Section 156(3) requires sending of substance to substance in writing and through post. When
Cr.P.C, was enacted it used to be speediest and genuine mode to communicate to S.P. But after
scientific development there are numerous different modes which grant rapid mode
for example email, WhatsApp and cellular call. So to interpret in writing and through post.
Doctrine of Updating Construction‘ ought to be utilized so that these modes can be covered.

Comparison of the Indian Magistrate with the French System of Judge

instructions’

1
(1983) 1 SCC 228
Any evaluation of the function of a Magistrate can't be entire except a assessment with
the remarkable function of a Magistrate in the French System. France’s investigating
magistrates, or Juge d’instructions’, as they are referred to as in French, have been a central pillar
of the French criminal justice machine for the closing 200 years. Under the French System -
Investigation in respect of serious and complicated offences is carried out under the supervision
of an unbiased judicial officer, who for the reason of discovering reality : collects proof for
and against the accused and then decides whether or not the accused ought to be tried or not. In
case of there being ample material, the matter is forwarded for an adversarial trial via jury.
The institution of a juge d’instruction was made in the mid nineteenth Century. Judges are
appointed by means of none other than the President himself - for constant three-
year phrases (which are renewable) upon the suggestions of the Ministry of Justice. The juge
d’instruction commences investigation on either a referral through the prosecutor or on a
private complaint.

Once the juge d’instruction’s is seized of the matter : even the accused receives right to all
the files and proof amassed in the course of the investigation, and the right to be
assisted through a counsel at some stage in the investigation. In distinction to this, in a strictly
adversarial device - such as ours, the accused has little function to play in the investigation. The
Investigating officers generally acquire only incriminating material, absolutely disregarding   
exculpatory material. The accused does now not get to take part in the investigation
process, until the filing of the police report, and no longer even thereafter, strictly speaking, as
even upto the stage of charge, he can't adduce any evidence of his very own to aid the court. He
can only tackle submissions, punch holes, and expose intrinsic infirmities in the case of the
prosecution.
This consequences the court having a absolutely one sided view of the case, at least until the
stage of charge. This also outcomes in a warped investigation; as tons of what the accused can
possibly count on, is lost. This is specifically challenging having regard to the reality that, most
accused folks have little investigative prowess in contrast to the state, and through dictates
of logic - a negative (innocence) is constantly more tough to be proved than a positive (guilt).
Coming again to the institution of Juge d’Intruction, to aid truth finding, juge has
a extensive range of powers available. He might also issue search warrants and order seizure of
property. He also may issue warrants requiring attendance of different witnesses; he may
also even require professionals to testify. Infact, if there is a conflicting testimony, witnesses are
confronted with each other and frequently with the accused. This exercise is no longer done, in
an adversarial system, till the recording and understanding of evidence, which is usually- years
after the authentic prevalence and when the recollection of the incident is allowed to be muddied.
The proof gathered and the testimony of witnesses recorded - make up what is acknowledged as
a ‘dossier of a case’, which serves as a information for the juge in the preliminary hearing in the
court. It is additionally made accessible to the defense, so that the aspect of surprise,
so widespread in common-law trials, is eradicated from the essential hearing. It is on
the power of this file that the juge d’instruction bases his decision as to whether or not to commit
a case to trial. The trial is carried out via any other judge or the jury, which lets in a sparkling set
of eyes to evaluate the proof collected.
The group of Juge d’ instruction’ has been instrumental in unearthing many massive scale
political and economic scams through their incisive and fearless investigations, specifically 
towards  the excessive and the mighty. On account of the legendary position performed 
through them, these investigating magistrates have been immortalized in French literature and
films. French Novelist Honore de Balzac once described a French analyzing magistrate as the
‘most powerful man’ in the country. The juges are recognized for being independent and 
objective and their offerings are invoked in the most intricate of all cases.
Expectedly, through their dauntless and instead unsparing investigations, the group has ruffled a
lot of feathers and there is a definitive strive on the part of the powerful in France - to clip their
wings.
This has additionally succeeded in a honest measure as investigating magistrates nowadays deal
with much less than five per cent of all cases, however, most of these cases are sensitive.
This consistent dilution of their powers has been hostile through many in France as
a foremost step backward for person liberties. It has additionally been argued that
the move will go away nation’s legal technique tenuous, damaged and susceptible to political
manipulation.
It will be naive to recommend that the group of analyzing magistrates is devoid of
imperfections. An inquisitorial device is not at all infallible. An apt illustration will be – Albert
Camus’ well-known work - ‘The Stranger’, where an analyzing magistrate approves 
extraordinarily prejudicial previous persona evidence (which ought to have been excluded) and
societal retribution to creep into the trial in opposition to the defendant. Wherein a trial for
Murder of an assailant, evidence was allowed to show that the defendant did no longer trust in
God; Evidence was additionally allowed to the impact that the accused displayed a lack of
emotion/grief at his mother’s funeral some months back. Strangely, this reality used to
be allowed to be led in proof to show his guilt in a completely unrelated murder case.
One greater opposition to the French mannequin is that: there is no constitutional right of habeas
corpus in France. Investigating magistrates have a right to preserve suspects in detention
for prolonged durations of time besides trial.
It is additionally argued that the ‘examining magistrate’ gadget is also much less advantageous in
ordinary crimes. It is slower and occasionally chokes the system; it is especially greater opaque
and the attention of power in one magistrate on occasion leads to arbitrariness
in exercise thereof. Having stated this, the Inquisitorial system has certain simple advantages. It
can be used to averting misunderstandings at an formerly stage in the case. In addition to this, in
an inquisitorial gadget - ‘truth seeking’ is the critical value, and the very ‘end’ of the system.
This is distinction to the Adversarial system, where through competing to show one’s case to
the judge - parties are prompted to win, no longer discover the truth. This can lead
to pointless problems throughout the trial and greater technical objections. Truth looking
for is misplaced somewhere in this dialectic clash, which is seldom performed through the rules.
Such a passive system, additionally ends up lucrative the higher legal professional and no
longer the greater sincere case.
Relatively, trial techniques in this non-adversary mannequin are simpler, much less technical,
and less lawyer dominated than in the adversary mannequin where a complicated system of
evidentiary and procedural regulations governs the parties' judicial duel.2
It is undeniable that the pass towards a extra pro-active and participative magistracy, on
the traces of the analyzing magistrate is the want of the hour. Incidents of transgression
of power will now not be common-place, and in any event, a magistrate can be credited
with larger objectivity than the average investigating officer. The argument of opportunity of
bias creeping in is no longer very convincing as bias can by no means be totally dominated out
as lengthy as investigation is carried out through any human agency. However, a judge’s

2
Edward A. Tomlinson, Non adversarial Justice: the French Experience, 42 Md. L. Rev. 131 (1983)
very training offers him atleast some quantity of transcendence and objectivity; even though -
aberrations are constantly there.
Therefore, on a juxtaposition of the two systems. Both have positive blessings and
concerns. But on a truthful evaluation - the trade of no longer be difficult; the advantages of
a extra inquisitorial method a long way outweigh the pitfalls. Across the world - there is
a pass closer to more concerned and much less passive legal systems. Within the Indian Legal
Framework – these advantages can be accomplished with the expansion, or atleast better use of
Section 164 of the CrPC - wherein statements of extra material witnesses are recorded earlier
than the Magistrate for the duration of investigation, greater proactive use of S.156(3), inclusion
of powers to omit precise instructions to the Investigating Officers, with a view to aid the search
of fact – as advocated through the Malimath Committee and saving of inherent powers with the
trial court. This paper is an strive to exhibit that all this can be achieved, atleast in
a honest measure, within the present judicial framework.

Supporting Case Laws

1. In Mohd. Yousuf v. Afaq Jahan Hon’ble, Apex Court observed: (SCC p. 631, para
11)3 that a Judicial Magistrate, earlier than taking cognizance of the offence, may
also order investigation below Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he ought to no
longer reflect on consideration on the complainant’s oath due to the fact he used to
be not taking cognizance of any offence therein.

2. This Court had taken the identical view in Dilawar Singh v. State of Delhi (JT vide
para 17)4
The honb’le Court clarified that even if an FIR has been registered and the police have
made the investigation, or is making the investigation, which the
aggrieved individual feels is no longer satisfactory, such a individual can approach the
Magistrate below Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order
a ideal investigation and can also take different suitable actions.

3
Mohd. Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan and Ors. (02.01.2006 - SC) : MANU/SC/8888/2006
4
Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi (05.09.2007 - SC) : MANU/SC/3678/2007
 Thus, in cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has no longer achieved its job or
is now not satisfied with the investigation of the case, he can direct the police to
supervise the investigation and reveal it.

3. In State of Bihar v. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19)5 , Hon’ble Court held that
a Magistrate can order an investigation to resume even after the police have submitted
the closing report.
Thus, Section 156(3) Cr.P.C even though temporarily worded, is
very substantial and consists of all such incidental powers as are essential to make
sure a ideal investigation.

4. In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others 6,

it was determined that if a individual has a complaint that his FIR has no longer been
registered through the police, appropriate investigation is now not being done, then
the remedy accessible to the aggrieved individual is not to go to the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however to approach the
Magistrate involved under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

High Court’s Power - (Why not go the High Court through filing a writ petition or

Under Section 482 Cr.P.C)
Hon’ble Apex Court relying on its judgment passed in Case 1 located that- we
have discovered in this country that the High Courts are flooded with writ petitions
praying for registration of the first information report or praying for
a acceptable investigation.
The High Court ought to no longer inspire this exercise and have to usually refuse to
intervene in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his
alternating remedy underneath Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. If regardless
of approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36,
his complaint nevertheless persists, then he can approach a Magistrate below Section
156(3) Cr.P.C. rather of speeding to the High Court by means of way of a writ petition or
5
State of Bihar and Ors. vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors. (13.11.1979 - SC) : MANU/SC/0253/1979
6
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. (12.04.2010 - SC) : MANU/SC/1328/2010
 a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The High Court discourage the exercise of filing a writ petition or petition below Section
482 Cr.P.C. surely due to the fact a person’s FIR has no longer been
registered through the police, or after being registered, a appropriate investigation has no
longer been done through the police. For this grievance,
the remedy lies underneath Sections 36 and 154(3) earlier than the involved police
officers, and if that is of no avail, below Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate
or with the aid of filing a crook grievance under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
It is authentic that alternative remedies are no longer the absolute bar to a writ
petition, however it is equally settled that the High Court ought  not to intervene if there
is an alternative remedy.

OVERVIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT

Thus, it can be safely concluded that in order to keep the wheels of our criminal

justice  system moving, filing of “FIR” is most essential. The identical need
to be accomplished chronologically. Firstly, the complainant need to strive to get the FIR
filed under.
“Trial judge as the kingpin in administration of Justice.” 7

It is obvious that sufficient powers are vested in the magistrate to take a look at arbitrary

arrests, police excesses & to facilitate a extra incisive probe into the discovery of truth,
at a variety of tiers of an investigation, and even after filing of the police report.
Never should a judge discover himself in a scenario where he has to make a grudging
confession of acquitting a acknowledged perpetrator due to lack of proof or investigative
lapses. A conscientious magistrate’s Dharma additionally lies in the deft use of these
provisions, in order to uphold constitutional values and the Rule of law, and in this he
ought not to hesitate in recalibrating the scales of justice and even protectively
discriminating to right systemic asymmetries & hazards closer to the weaker accused,
witness or the complainant. Existing provisions can be interpreted creatively. Cues can be

7
All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119
 taken from the magisterial role, as envisaged in different jurisdictions. No doubt, there
would be questions raised over the magistrate having descended into the arena. But
the magistrate ought to no longer to be unnecessarily cautious of such aspersions; or be a
worshipper of lifeless habit, convention, or the complacency of the reputation quo, for no
ideals, howsoever hallowed, can be allowed to obstruct the voyage of discovery, an
affirmative obligation for the search of truth.

REFERENCES
 National Textile Workers Union v. P.R. Ramakrishnan
 Edward A. Tomlinson, Non adversarial Justice: the French Experience, 42 Md. L. Rev.
131 (1983)
 Mohd. Yousuf vs. Afaq Jahan and Ors. (02.01.2006 - SC) : MANU/SC/8888/2006
 Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi (05.09.2007 - SC) : MANU/SC/3678/2007
 State of Bihar and Ors. vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors. (13.11.1979 - SC) :
MANU/SC/0253/1979
 Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. (12.04.2010 - SC) :
MANU/SC/1328/2010
 All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 119

BRIEF ABOUT AUTHOR

Shivani Shukla is pursuing LL.B (Hons.) at Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. She is
associated with ProBono India as an intern. She has organized many seminars and also attended
legal service society outreach. She is a strong believer in the power of positive thinking. Other
than law, she enjoys travelling and playing badminton which gives her escape from academic.