HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                         [2016] 2 S.C.R. 997


                  HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE                                     A
                                   v.
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
                  (Criminal Appeal No. 110 of2016)
                        FEBRUARY I 0, 2016                                  B

         [M.Y. EQBAL AND SHIVA KffiTI SINGH, JJ.]
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 156(3) - Police
officers power to investigate cognizable case - Registration of FIR
- Complaint by appellant before the Magistrate for registration of
FIR - Rejected by the Magistrate taking note of the order passed
                                                                            c
by this Court wherein the action of High Court in entertaining writ
petition for change of investigating officer was disapproved - In
writ petitian also the High Court rejected to issue direction for
registration of FIR holding that it was open for the petitioner to
seek clarification/modification of the order from this Court - On           D
appeal. held: Import of the order passed by this Court is that the
registration of an F.1.R. involves only the process of recording the
substance of information relating to commission of 011y cognizable
offence in a book kept by the officer incharge of the concerned
police station - To enable the police to start investigation, it is open
                                                                            E
to the Magistrate to direct the police to register an F.I.R and even
where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit words but directs for
 investigation u/s. 156(3), the police should register an F.I.R -
 Because s. 156 falls within chapter XII of the Code which deals
 with powers of the po/ice officers to investigate cognizable offences,
ihe police officer concerned would always be in a better position to        F.
 take further steps contemplated in Chapter XII once F.I.R. is
 registered in respect of the concerned cognizable offence - Thus,
 direction issued to the Magistrate and the police officer to rectify
 their mistake by ensuring registration of an appropriate F.I.R. -
 Direction also issued to the police to complete the investigation fairly
                                                                            G
 and in accordance with law at an early date.
       Mohd. Youszif i: .·lfaq Johan (Sm!.) and Another (2006)
       1 sec 627 - relied on.
                         Case Law Reference
       (2006) 1 sec 627           relied on              Para 10            H
                                   997
998            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2016) 2 S.C.R.


A           CR1MINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
      No. 110 of2016.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 13.02.2012 of the High Court
      of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3009of2011.
            Ram Jethmalani, R. Venkataramani, Sr. Advs. S.M. Jacthav, Yashraj
B     Singh Bundela, Ms. Lata Krishnamurti, Ms. P.R. Mala, Chirag Madan,
      Anirudh Anand, Shashank Bhandari, Anubhav, Ms. Nee lam Singh, Venkita
      Subramoniam T. R., Anshuman Animesh, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Salman Khurshid, P. Chidambaram, R.N. Dhorde, Arvind Sawant,
      Sr.Advs. Sushi I Karanjkar, Antony R. Julian, Dharmendra Kishor, Ms.
 c    Taruna A. Prasad, Av'iral Shukla, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, M. Y.
      Deshmukh, Shri Kant Deshmukh, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar,
      Arpit Rai, Sudhakar Dwivedi, Advs. for the Respondents.
            The following Order of the Court was delivered
                                        ORDER
D
             SHIVA KJRTI SINGH, J. I. We have heard learned counsel
      for the parties at some length.
            2. Leave granted.
            3. Though the matter has remained pending for long, fortunately
 E    the core issue involved for our consideration is a very simple one.
            4. The appellant was respondent in two Criminal Appeals bearing
      Numbers 766 and 767 of2010 arising out of a common judgment of the
      High Court of Bombay dated September 8, 2009 in CRL. W.P. No. 2482
      of2008.
 F
             5. This Court disposed of both the appeals vide order dated April
      12, 20 I 0. It did not approve the action of High Court in entertaining writ
      petitions for change of investigating officer. The relevant parts of that
      order read as follows :- .

 G          "We are Of the opinion that ifthe High Courts entertain such writ
            petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will
            not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ
            petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of
            his alternate remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under
            Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will
 H
        HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE v. STATE OF                                        999
    MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

       ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first         A
       information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the
       matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.
        In view oftlie settled position in Sakiri Vasu's (supra), the impugned
        judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set
        aside. The concerned Magistrate is directed to ensure proper             B
      . investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.
        and if he deems it necessary he can also recommend to the S.S.P./
        S.P. concerned change of the investigation officl'f, so that a proper
        investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the
        investigation, though he cannot himself investigate (as investigation
        is the job of the police. Parties may produce any material they
                                                                                  c
        wish before the concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate
        shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of
        the High court.
        Tlie appeals are allowed in the above terms.
                                                                                  D
        In view of the aforesaid order, no orders need be passed on the
        application for intervention and it is disposed of accordingly."
       6. The appellant, in the capacity of complainant, approached the
 learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Court No.2, Pune who took notice of
 this Court's order and issued several clir~ctions in RCC No. 0402459/            E
 2008 as is evident from its order dated February 17, 2011, including
 relevant direciions to the investigating officer. But unfortunately the
 learned Judicial Magistrate came to a.wrong conclusion that in the
 absence of any specific direction of this Court, the prayer of the
 complainant for registration off.LR. had to be rejected. The complainant
 then approached the High Court of Bombay through Criminal Writ Petition          F
 No. 3009 of201 l which was disposed of by the impugned order dated
_February 13, 2012. The High Court declined to issue a direction for
 registering an F.l.R. by taking the view that it was open for the petitioner
 to seek clarification/modification of the order from the apex Court.
        7. Mr. RamJethmalani, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf          G
 of the appellant argued with vigor that investigation into a serious case
 has been unnecessarily delayed at the instance of vested interests and
 hence this Court should now take a strong view and in the light of earlier
 order dated April 12, 2010, the police should be directed to treat the
 pending case as a police case in view of implications arising from Section
                                                                                  H
1000            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2016] 2 S.C.R.


 A     156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (in short 'the Code'). He further
       submitted that without wasting much time, the pol ice should conduct a
       thorough investigation and complete the same within a reasonable time
       period such as six months and submit its final views to the learned
       Magistrate through a proper report.
 B             8. Mr. P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel appearing for
       private respondents did not oppose the aforesaid prayer. In fact, according
       to his submissions, the police could be asked to complete the investigation
       even in a shorter span of time and submit its final views to the Magistrate
       without wasting time on the formality ofregistration of F.l.R.
 c            9. Mr. Arvind Sawant, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf
       of the State of Maharashtra has drawn our attention to copies of various
       reports submitted by the investigating officer. He expressed his
       concurrence with the view that police may be directed to submit its final
       opinion in the matter through an appropriate report within a reasonable
       time.
 D
              I 0. In view of the aforesaid broad consensus amongst the counsel
       for the various parties, it is not necessary for us to go deeper into the
       relevant issue of law as to whether the earlier order of this Court dated
       April 12,2010 warranted registering of F.l.R. by the police before
       commencing investigation. But we would like to only indicate in brief
 E     the law on this subject expressly stated by this Court in the case of
       Mohd. Yousuf versus Afaq Jahan (Smt.} and another, (2006) I SCC
       627. This Court explained that registration of an F.l.R. involves only the
       process ofrecording the substance of information relating to commission
       of any cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer incharge of the
 F     concerned police station. In paragraph 11 of the aforementioned case,
       the law was further elucidated by pointing out that to enable the police to
       start investigation, it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to
       register an F.l.R. and even where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit
       words but directs for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code, the
       police should register an F.l.R. Because Section 156 falls within chapter
 G     XII of the Code which deals with powers of the pol ice officers to
       investigate cognizable offences, the police officer concerned would
       always be in a better position to take further sieps contemplated in Chapter
       Xll once F.l.R. is registered in respect of the concerned cognizable
       offence.
 H
       HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE v. STATE OF                                       1001
   MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS (SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.]

       11. In our considered view, the same was the import of this Court's      A
order passed on April 12, 20 I 0. In the light of the said earlierorder; the
legal position noticed above and the stand of the parties, we have no
difficulty in directing the concerned Magistrate and the police officer to
rectify their mistake by ensuring registration of an appropriate F.I.R.
The delay in lodging of such F.l.R. occurring after April 12, 20 I 0 shall
                                                                                B
not have any effect on the investigation already carried out by the
investigating officer(s). We also direct the police to complete the
investigation fairly and in accordance with law at an early date, preferably
within six months. On receipt of appropriate report from the police on
conclusion of investigation, the learned Magistrate will deal with the
matter strictly in accordance with law on the basis of materials available.     C
on record without being influenced by orders passed by different Courts.
       12. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Nidhi Jain                                                  Appeal allowed.