One of the notable rulings rendered by the Indian Supreme Court is in the 2007 case of sakiri vasu v state of up and Others. The significance of section 156 3 of the code of criminal procedure (henceforth referred to as the CrPC) and the authority of the Judicial Magistrate to guarantee an appropriate investigation of the case are covered and discussed. section 156 3 of the code of criminal procedure contains a very broad range of provisions.
sakiri vasu v state of up Case Facts
- The appellant is the father of Ravishankar, a Major in the Indian Army.
- On August 23, 2003, the Major’s body was found at Mathura Railway Station.
- After conducting an investigation, the Mathura Government Railway Police (GRP) reported on August 29, 2003, that the death was either a suicide or an accident.
- After conducting two independent investigations, the Mathura Army officers came to the same conclusion: the Major had killed himself.
- The inquiries were based on testimony from an eyewitness and the servant of the late Major.
- The father of Major Ravishankar, the appellant, asserted that his son was killed and not suicidal.
- According to his allegation, his son was slain after he exposed the extensive corruption inside the Mathura Army unit to both him and his superiors.
- The appellant filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, citing his dissatisfaction with the investigation’s conclusion that the victim committed suicide. However, the court dismissed the appeal.
- The appellant then requested an investigation by a special investigating agency in an appeal to the Supreme Court made according to article 136 of the indian constitution of 1950.
Judicial Magistrate’s Authority to Oversee the Investigation
Section 156 of the CrPC gives the Judicial Magistrate the authority to order the police to conduct a thorough inquiry. There are several phases to the magistrate’s authority to monitor the investigation, which are as follows:
- As soon as the FIR is filed, the first step is to instruct the police to begin an investigation.
- In the course of the investigation, the person is arrested in the second step. In order to establish the legitimacy of the arrest and to further determine if the arrest is judicial or police, he or she must be brought before the magistrate by the police within 24 hours.
- The third step involves the judicial magistrate’s intervention to record statements according to Section 164 of the CrPC, in which an individual confesses in front of the magistrate and requests identification, verification of identity, and application processing.
- Monitoring the investigation is the fourth step.
- Following the filing of the FIR, the fifth step is a directive for additional inquiry pursuant to Section 173 of the CrPC.
sakiri vasu v state of up Issues
- Does the Magistrate have the authority to order the CBI to conduct an investigation under section 156 3 of the code of criminal procedure?
- Does the Magistrate have the authority to reject the order to register a FIR in accordance with section 156 3 of the code of criminal procedure?
- Is it possible for someone to file a case in the High Court even if the CrPC offers other options?
- Is it feasible for the person who feels wronged to request that a certain agency conduct the investigation?
- Whether the Magistrate may revoke the investigation’s reopening order following the submission of the “Final Report” in accordance with section 156 3 of the code of criminal procedure
sakiri vasu v state of up: Provisions Involved
- Section 154(3) of CrPC: This item was important because it gives residents a way to file a complaint if a police officer declines to do so. The case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh established the appellant’s entitlement to pursue additional assistance in the event that local police were unable to act, thereby opening the door for judicial action to guarantee a thorough inquiry.
- Section 156(3) of CrPC: According to this clause, the magistrate has the authority to direct police inquiries into crimes that are legally recognized. Justice is served when initial police activities are shown to be insufficient or biased, and the Supreme Court’s analysis of this clause was crucial in determining whether the Magistrate could oversee additional investigations.
- Section 36 of CrPC: The police force’s hierarchical oversight is represented in this section. It was relevant to the Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh case because it addressed how top police officers oversee investigations and make sure they are conducted appropriately, which strengthens the department’s chain of command and accountability.
- Section 482 of CrPC: The inherent authority of the High Court to step in and stop injustice and the misuse of the legal system is emphasized in this section. The Supreme Court’s reading of Section 482 in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP was crucial in evaluating the High Court’s ruling to deny the request for a CBI investigation and its wider ramifications for judicial supervision and involvement in criminal investigations.
Contentions by the Parties
Petitioner:
- The appellant’s learned counsel contended that Major Ravishankar, the appellant’s son, was indeed murdered. He claimed that his late son knew of widespread corruption in the army’s Mathura unit and had spoken out to both his father, the appellant, and his superiors about the matter orally. Consequently, the appellant contended that this was the motive behind his murder.
- The appellant also brought up concerns about the GRP Mathura inquiry, which concluded that Major Ravishankar had committed suicide.
- Additionally, the appellant requested that the CBI look into the incident because he was dissatisfied with the army’s investigation.
Respondent:
- The State of Uttar Pradesh’s experienced attorney stated that the army’s investigations revealed that Major Ravishankar, the appellant’s son, passed away in an accident.
- Additionally, they argued that although the appellant voiced certain concerns about the investigation, the State authorized an additional inquiry by the army, based on the findings of the GRP Mathura investigation, which found that the appellant’s son had committed suicide.
- They also said that a person could not seek an inquiry by a special investigation agency, but if they were dissatisfied with the results of the investigation, they might request another one. However, they could not require an investigation by a specialized agency.
sakiri vasu v state of up Judgment
- Based on the CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi & Ors. case, the Supreme Court ruled that anyone who feels wronged by a court judgment or a police probe can file a request for a proper investigation, but they cannot require an investigation by a particular agency.
- The Supreme Court held that there is no need to file a case in the High Court where there is an alternative remedy available because doing so will add to the backlog of cases.
- The appellant’s request for a CBI investigation was denied by the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s decision. This was because there was insufficient evidence to support a CBI investigation.
- Previous investigations conducted by the G.R.P. Mathura and twice by Army officials have already indicated that the deceased’s cause of death was either suicide or an accident.
- The court further declared that it was unclear whether the magistrate had accepted the investigation’s final report or not.
- The matter is still considered pending before the magistrate and no order has been made if the report is rejected. The matter will be deemed resolved if the magistrate approves of the report.
It is important to follow the procedural remedies provided for in Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of the CrPC. This is because the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP discourages the direct filing of writ petitions in the High Courts for problems related to non-registration of FIRs or improper investigations. This decision upholds the lower courts’ role in preserving the probity of the investigation process while also guaranteeing the prompt resolution of concerns.
With the awareness that there is legal remedy available in the event that law enforcement is unable to fulfil its obligations, it has empowered citizens and increased public trust in the legal system. The case has reinforced the legal system and brought procedural clarity, but it has also sparked discussions about ways to make our legal system even more effective and efficient. The tenets maintained in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP will hold true going forward, directing the search for justice and bolstering India’s legal system.
By rendering the astounding landmark decision in this case, the Supreme Court has upheld the notion that people have other options if they would rather not go directly to the High Courts or the Hon. Supreme Court for their problems relating to filing a formal complaint or conducting a thorough investigation under Sections 154 and 156 of the CrPC.
This ruling makes it clear that police officers must file a formal complaint in order to conduct a thorough investigation. The magistrate must then declare an offense committed in light of the report the investigating officer has provided to him in order to direct a more thorough examination into the case.
With the goal of giving students the best coaching available for law entrance exams including the CLAT, AILET, and various other numerous state judiciary exams, Jyoti Judiciary Coaching, India’s Finest educational Platform, was established. Come enrol now with Jyoti Judiciary!
For any latest news, legal topics, judiciary exams notifications, patterns, etc watch Jyoti Judiciary’s YouTube channel for legal videos for any updates at https://youtube.com/@jyotijudiciarycoaching4852?si=2cwubh9d2A9urwJf
