IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR I
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE NO: 404 OF 2024
Revision filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C.,
praying that in the
circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support
of the Criminal Revision
Case, the High Court may be pleased to set aside the
disposal order dated
25-04-2024 passed in CrI.M.P No. 152/2024 in Crime
No. 222/2024 of East
Police Station, Tirupati on file of Hon'ble II Additional
Judicial Magistrate of
First Class - cum - II Additional Civil Judge, Tirupati
filed under Section 156
(3) Code of Criminal Procedure by duly allowing the
petition.
Between:
P V Rajyalakshmi, aged about 74 years, W/o N. Syamasundara
Naidu
D. No.19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta,
Tirupati Town
Chittoor District, A.P.
...Revision Petitioner
AND
Investigation Officer, Crime No. 222/2024, East Police
Station, Tirupati
On behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public
Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi.
...Respondent
F
%
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri. Namineni Pavan Kumar
Counsel for the Respondent: Public Prosecutor (AP)
The Court made the following:
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
* * * *
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 404'of 2024
Between:
P.V.Rajyalakshmi,
aged about 74 years,
W / o. N. Syamasundara Naidu,
D.No.19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta,
Tirupati
Town, Chittoor District, A.P.
...petitioner
Vs.
INVESTIGATION OFFICER,
Crime No.222/2024, East Police Station, Tirupati On
behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public
Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
...Respondent
DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED : 31.07.2024
SUBMITTED FOR. APPROVAL
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments ? Yes/No
2. Whether copies of Judgment may be
marked to Law Reporters/Journals ? Yes/No"
3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the
fair copy of the Judgment ? Yes/No'=
2
* HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.404 OF 2024
+
% 31.07.2024
Between:
#P.V.Rajyalakshmi,
W/o N.Syamasundara Naidu,
aged about 74 years,
D.No.19-14-11, Raghavendra Nagar, Kesavayanagunta, Tirupati
Town, Chittoor District, A.P.
...petitioner
Vs.
INVESTIGATION OFFICER
Crime No.222/2024, East Police Station, Tirupati Oh
behalf of the State of Andhra Pradesh Rep. by Public Prosecutor
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi
...Respondent
! Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Pavan Kumar Namineni,
^ Counsel for the Respondent : Learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
< Gist :
> Head Note:
? Cases Referred:
1. 2008(2) see 409
2. (2022) 18 S.C.R.163
3. (2011) 12 see 328
4. (2016) 6 see 277
5. AIRONLINE 2020 SC 387
6. 2019 sec OnLine SC 1346
7. Misc.Criminal Case No.44485 of 2020 Madhya Pradesh High Court,
dt.25.03.2021
8. (2022) 9 see 321
1
APHC010204442024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT
AMARAVATI [3396]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No. 404 of 2024
Between:
P V Rajyalakshmi ...PETITIONER
AND
Investigation Officer ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.NAMINENI PA VAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of the
1
Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973', impugning the order dated
25.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.152 of 2024 on the file of the Court of II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of I Class-cum-ll Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Tirupati,^ wherein, while disposing of the
CrI.M.P., the learned
Magistrate directed the Investigating Officer to look into the grievance of the
Petitioner in connection with the Crime No.222 of 2024 of East Police Station,
Hereinafter referred to as “the Code”
^ Hereinafter referred to as “Magistrate Court/Trial
Court’
2
Tirupati, registered for the offence under Sections
354 427, 506 and 509
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.^
2. The factual background, as borne out from the record,
i
IS as
follows;
a. Petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.152 of 2024
on the file of the Magistrate Court/
Revision Petitioner before this Court/de facto
Complainant is a retired
professor and a resident of Tirupati. She has lodged
a written report against
Babu Naidu and others, who are arrayed as accused
in the registered Crime
No.222 of 2024.
b. In the Petition filed vide CrI.M.P., it is the plea
of the Petitioner that the
accused, being her neighbour made illegal construction
of
a cellar on the
western side of the Complainant’s house without
any plan approval by, the
Municipal Authorities and without
any set back. It is stated that several
complaints dated 06.01.2024
22.01.2024,
29.01.2024
02.02.2024,
08.04.2024 and 10.04.2024 have been brought to the
notice of the police
officials right from the Station House Officer to the
cadre of the Director
General of Police, against the accused, for causing
mischief and destruction
of her dwelling house, threatening and attempting to
kill the Petitioner’s
daughter, intimidating and outraging the modesty of
the Petitioner,
conspiring
and attempting to destruct the Petitioner’s house.
It is stated that Petitioner
^ Hereinafter referred to as “IPC
3
was made to bind over to acquiesce to the accused illegal
and unauthorised
construction of cellar in encroached land adjacent
to the western compound
wall of the Petitioner’s house. It is stated that the
Accused removed the
foundation at the bottom of the compound wall and cracking
the compound
wall in the guise of digging a further deep pit of
about 15 feet in the land
abutting the south-west compound wall purportedly for
unauthorised cellar
construction. It is further stated that basing on the
Complaint given by the De
facto Complainant, finally on 10.04.2024, a case has
been registered against
Babu Naidu and his henchmen, which is the subject matter
of the above
crime.
c. It is stated that since the Police deliberately
refused to collect crucial
time sensitive evidence, which if not interfered with
immediately, would result
in the criminal proceedings being ceremonial leading
to permanent
miscarriage of justice, the Petitioner filed an application
under Section 156(3)
of the Code before the trial Court to monitor the investigation.
The said
Petition was disposed of, vide impugned order dated
25.04.2024.
3. The grounds taken by the Revisionist in the Revision,
are as
follows;
a. The observation that the Trial Court cannot monitor each and every
step of investigation as the investigation is the exclusive domain of the police
4
in the crimes particularly registered under Section
154 of the Code
is contrary
to the settled law and bound to cause miscarriage of
justice.
b. The view of the Trial Court that the
scope of monitoring investigation
under Section 156(3) of the Code is meant only in cases
of private complaint
is contrary to the well settled law.
c. The Trial Court erred in not observing the exceptional
omissions and
commissions of the police and their deliberate actions
to save the accused.
d. The Trial Court turned
a blind eye to the deliberate and brazen
falsification of Columns 8 and 10 of the FIR in order
to diminish the offence
registered to save the accused.
e. The Police have failed to collect the time sensitive
evidence
which is
bound to cause miscarriage of justice, since it could
disappear.
f. The impugned order is bereft of any scrutiny of the
evasiveness on the
part of the Police to collect such evidence.
g. Because of the inaction of the Police, the petitioner
is still in threat
which the trial Court failed to recognize. The Accused
retaliated
on
10.04.2024 for the complaint which
was forwarded through the
Superintendent of Police on 08.04.2024.
5
h. The impugned order is contrary to the Judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Sakiri Vasu V. State of U.P.^*
Arguments Advanced at the Bar
4. Heard Sri Pavan Kumar Namineni, learned counsel for
the
Petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
appearing for
respondent/state.
5. Perused the material available on record.
6. In the written submissions filed by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, it is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court
in Sakiri Vasu (case
referred supra) has expressly held that a power of
learned Magistrate to order
further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code
includes, implied and
incidental powers to monitor and supervise power of investigation and that it
is the only remedy available to a victim, who is aggrieved
by the inaction of
the Police.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the Revision
Petitioner that the learned Magistrate has got every
authority to check the
investigation though the case is registered by the
Police under Section 154 of
the Code without it being referred under Section 156(3) of the Code. Learned
counsel further would submit that the jurisdictional Magistrate as per Section
173(8) of the Code, could scrutinise the investigation done by the Police and
" 2008(2) see 409
6
identify the lapses and direct the Police for further
investigation under
incidental and implied powers. Learned counsel further
submits that the
purport of investigation ordered under Section 202
of the Code is to be from
the investigation ordered under Section 156(3) of the
Code, Learned counsel
further submits that in the impugned order, the learned
Magistrate simply
disposed of the Petition showing that the Investigation
is exclusive domain of
the Police when a case is registered under Section
154 of the Code
and that
conclusion is quite contrary to the provisions of law
and the Judgment
of the
Hon’ble Apex Court.
8. Learned counsel finally would submit that when the
Police
IS
deliberately avoiding to collect the evidence during
the course of investigation
to shield the Accused or though not deliberately but
in a lethargic way so that
the time sensitive evidence may disappear, the jurisdictional
Magistrate
has
every authority to look into such aspects to set the
things in a right path by
exercising the power under Section 156(3) of the Code.
On these
grounds,
learned counsel would contend that the impugned order
is not sustainable
under law.
9. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor would
submit
that the Police are attending the case with diligent
attention. It is stated that
the written objections filed by the Police before the
Magistrate Court would
show that C.C.T.V. footages are not available. Further,
the jurisdictional
Magistrate has no authority to monitor the investigation
by issuing specific
7
directions for the collection of evidence. Therefore,
in the light of these
submissions, the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor
submits that the Court
may pass appropriate orders.
Point for Determination
10. Having heard learned counsel representing both sides,
the
question that would arise for determination before
this Court is:
I. Whether Learned Magistrate can monitor or look into
the grievance of
the victim and respond to the inaction of the police in collecting the
crucial time bound evidence during the course of investigation,
in a
case registered by police under Section 154(1) of the Code?
II. Whether the impugned order passed by the learned magistrate is
sustainable under law or warrants any interference of this Court?
Determination by the Court:
11. The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the Police are not
conducting investigation in a proper way and are showing lethargy in
collection of evidence which is a time bound i.e., if not collected then and
there, it may not be possible to collect at subsequent period of time. The crux
of the issue is that the petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of investigation is
said to have been conducted against the accused on the complaint of the
Petitioner.
8
12. It is no doubt true that crime investigation is
one of the primary duties
of police. It is also fundamental trite of law that
investigation has to be fair,
proper transparent and judicious as it is an important
facet of rule of law. Fair
and proper investigation is also given the status of
a constitutional right as
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. In general
circumstances, it is in
the exclusive domain of the investigation authority
to conduct investigation
which includes multi-fold steps. It is a settled principle
that a Magistrate
cannot overstep the well-defined boundaries carved
in the criminal
jurisprudence. However, in cases where the grievance
is that the
investigation is not being conducted in a fair or proper
manner, the Magistrate
can step in and monitor the investigation, as per catena
of decisions. It is
necessary to discuss a few of them.
13. Sakiri Vasu is a decision wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court had
extensively reviewed the scope of powers vested with
a Magistrate in view of
Section 156 (3). The relevant passages thereunder read
thus;
"11. In this connection we would like to state that
if a person has a
grievance that the police station is not registering
his FIR under
Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent
of
Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application
in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result
in the sense that
either the FIR is still not registered, or that even
after registering it
no proper investigation is held, it is open to the
aggrieved person
to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
before the
learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application
under
9
Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the
Magistrate can
direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct
a proper
investigation to be made, in a case where, according
to the
aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made.
The
Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor
the
investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
*****
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs.
State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17).
We would
further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered
and even if
the police has made the investigation, or is actually
making the
investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such
a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper
investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order
orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation.
All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
*****
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the
police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases
where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty 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.
*****
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include
all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring
a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order
10
registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation
if the
Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation
has not been
done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3)
CrPC,
though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide
and it will
include all such incidental powers
as are necessary for ensuring a
proper investigation.
18. It is well-settled that when
a power is given to an authority to
do something it includes such incidental or implied
powers which
would ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other
words when
any power is expressly granted by the statute, there
is impliedly
included in the grant, even without special mention
every power
and every control the denial of which would render
the
grant itself
ineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction
it impliedly also
grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such
means as
are essentially necessary to its execution
24. In view of the abovementioned legal position
we are of the
view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded,
there is
an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
to order registration of a criminal offence and /or
to direct the
officer in charge of the concerned police station to
hold
a proper
investigation and take all such
necessary steps that may be
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including
monitoring
the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly
mentioned in Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we are of the
opinion that
they are implied in the above provision.”
(emphasis supplied)
11
14. In XYZ V. State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.,^ the
Hon’ble Supreme
Court while reiterating the law laid down in Sakiri
Vasu had observed that the
powers conferred to a Magistrate as under Section 156(3)
ought to be
exercised towards meeting the ends of justice. In T.C.
Thangaraj v. V.
Engammal,® has once again reiterated the position of
law as laid down in
Sakiri Vasu and observed as follows;
"12. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of
the Code of
Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate
on the
police performing their duties and where the Magistrate
finds that
the police have not done their duty or not investigated
satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the investigation
properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu v. State of
UP.)"
(emphasis supplied)
15. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe
v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others^ by following its
earlier decision in
Sakiri Vasu’s case (supra) held as follows;
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a
person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by
the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not
being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go
®[2022] 18S.C.R. 163
®(2011) 12 see 328
"(2016) 6 see 277
12
to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India
but
to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section
156(3)
Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3)
CrPC is made
and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he
can direct the FIR
to be registered, or if it has already been registered,
he can direct
proper investigation to be done which includes in his
discretion, if
he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating
officer, so that a proper investigation is done in
the matter. We
have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we
have found in
this country is that the High Courts have been flooded
with writ
petitions praying for registration of the first information
report or
praying for a proper investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the 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 Magistrate
concerned
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the
Magistrate
will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration
of the
first information report and also ensure
a proper investigation
in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."
(emphasis supplied)
17. In M.Subramaniam And Another v. S.Janaki And Another,
a three-
Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the
view taken in Sakiri
Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe.
AIR ONLINE 2020 SC 387
13
18. In Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya and others vs. State
of Gujarat and
another Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under;
"23. It is thus clear that the Magistrate's power under
Section
156(3) of the CrPC is very wide, for it is this judicial
authority that
must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the
police takes
place. To ensure that a "proper investigation" takes
place in the
sense of a fair and just investigation by the police
- which such
Magistrate is to supervise - Article 21 of the Constitution
of India
mandates that all powers necessary, which may also
be incidental
or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure
a proper
investigation which, without doubt, would include the
ordering of
further investigation after a report is received by
him under Section
173(2); and which power would continue to ensure in
such
Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings
until the trial
itself commences. Indeed, even textually, the "investigation"
referred to in Section 156(1) of the CrPC would, as
per the
definition of "investigation" under Section 2(h), include
all
proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by
a police
officer; which would undoubtedly include proceedings
by way of
further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC."
(Emphasis supplied)
10
19. In Om Prakash Sharma v. State of M.P. and another, a learned
Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court had provided
exhaustive
guidelines for the magistrates in the adjudication of applications filed under
Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. The relevant paragraph reads as follows.
2019 see OnLine Se 1346
10
Misc. eriminal ease No. 44485 Of 2020, Madhya Pradesh High eourt, dated 25-03-2021
14
15.4 (B) WHEN APPLICATION U/S 156(3) CRPC REVEALS
IMPROPER / DELAYED INVESTIGATION ONLY
(i) In case, application u/S, 156(3) relates to grievance
of improper
or delayed investigation after lodging of FIR, the
Magistrate should
direct the police to submit report and thereafter
pass appropriate
remedial directions if the report submitted by Police
discloses
improper or delayed investigation. The Magistrate after
passing
such order can also monitor the process of investigation
to ensure
that it reaches to it's logical & lawful conclusion.
However, while doing so, the Magistrate should avoid
stepping into
the shoes of investigating authority. The Magistrate
ought to
assume only supervisory role,
(ii) In case the report requisitioned from
Police reveals that
investigation is being done with promptitude and in
accordance with
law, then the application u/S. 156(3) should be
dismissed by
passing a short speaking order.”
(emphasis supplied)
20. Except making a reference of the decision in Sakiri
Vasu
referring the power of the Magistrate, no categorical
finding to that effect has
been given in the impugned order. It is significant
to note that the adjudication
authority and the Investigating Agency are distinct
but inseparable wings of
the criminal administration of justice. The detection
of a crime is exclusive
function of the investigating agency, whereas, adjudication
of such matters
and deciding a person is guilty or not for the said
offence is the authority of
the Court.
15
21. Section 156(1) confers power upon any officer in-charge
of a
police station to investigate any cognizable case. Section 156(3) provides for
a check by the Magistrate on the police performing
its duties under Chapter
XII, Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that
police has not done its
duty of investigating in the given 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.
22. It is no doubt true that the statute does not confer
any power
upon the Magistrate to interfere with the day to day investigation or to have
control over the investigation of the crime. At the
same time, the power of the
Police to investigate into any crime is not unlimited.
It should be exercised
within the limits as prescribed under law and should
not result in
transgression of settled principles of law. It is also true that the role of
jurisdictional Magistrate even in any police case starts from the receipt of the
original FIR. Needless to say, the exact time when the FIR reaches the Court
has got its own importance. It is not uncommon to see that in a case of grave
offence like murder, the enormous delay in reaching of the FIR to the Court
would go to the root of the case. It is also important to note that the time of
receiving the stipulated documents by the Magistrate would strengthen the
integrity and credibility of the Prosecution’s case.
23. Thereafter, even during the course of investigation, for police
custody, for collection of medical evidence, for collection of signatures, to
16
summon any person for production of any document, or
for Search Warrants,
Police may approach the concerned Magistrate Court
for its
assistance.
24.
At the end of the investigation, the final report,
vide Section 173
of the Cr.P.C. has to be filed before the
concerned Magistrate Court.
Sometimes, the final report may show incriminating
material collected during
the course of investigation against the accused and
at times. Police may
request the Court for closure of the case, when nothing
is found against the
Accused. Needless to say, even at such juncture, the
Magistrate has
ample
power either to receive the report as it is and take
cognizance of the offence
or direct the Police for further investigation
on any point, which was left
unanswered or accept the report after issuing notice
to the de facto
Complainant to close the
case or basing on the sworn statement of the de
facto Complainant in the protest petition may take
cognizance against all the
accused.
25. Now the question is as to whether the jurisdictional
Magistrate
has got any power to interfere in the investigation
in a case that is without
prior reference from the Court. Here is a case where
the Petitioner has
approached the Court stating that Police are deliberately
not collecting the
data i.e., CC footage and are showing lethargy for
collection of evidence
Succinctly put, the question is regarding the remedy
available in such a
situation to protect the interest of the victim. There
cannot be any dispute
about the fact that a crime is committed not just against
an individual, but it is
17
against the society and it is for the State to take
such responsibility to have
fight against the accused on behalf of the victim.
26. In the present case, Petitioner being a woman of about
75
years and a retired Professor by profession made a
complaint to Police to
the effect that to the west side of her house, accused
are making
unauthorised constructions without any approval from
the authorities
concerned and without leaving set-backs, causing destruction
of her property
and when questioned, the accused attacked her and her
daughter. In order
to establish the allegations made against the accused.
Complainant has
approached the Police and during the course of investigation
informed that
there is crucial evidence of CCTV Footage to show the
presence of JCB at
the scene. It is her grievance that the Police have
not responded. There
cannot be any second opinion that the investigation is the exclusive domain
of the Police. It does not mean that unlimited powers
are vested with the
Police to collect whatever evidence they feel and ignore the important
evidence as per their whims and fancies. It is the duty of the investigating
agency to collect the material irrespective of its favouring nature as the Code
stipulates for a fair investigation. When there is a dent in that process, the
victim has every right to approach the Magistrate Court by way of filing a
Petition. The Investigating Agency has filed a counter to the effect that the
CCTV footage is not available and that it is the exact grievance of the
Petitioner. Irrespective of the nature of the case, whether police or private
complaint, the power of Magistrate as under Section 156(3) is available to
18
monitor and supervise the investigation, when a grievance
is made. This is
the crux of the decisions referred supra.
27. The victim has a role in the criminal proceedings right
from the
stage of FIR vide the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Jagjeeth Singh
Vs. Ashish Mishra^\ wherein, at Para Nos.20 and 24
it was held as follows:
“20.lt ivas further recommended that the victim be
armed with a right
to be represented by an advocate of his/her choice,
and if he/she is
not in a position to afford the same, to provide an
advocate at the
State’s expense. The victim’s right to participate
in criminal trial and
his/her right to know the status of investigation,
and take necessary
steps, or to be heard at every crucial stage of the
criminal
proceedings, including at the time of grant or cancellation
of bail,
were also duly recognised by the Committee. Repeated
judicial
intervention, coupled with the recommendations made
from time to
time as briefly noticed above, prompted the Parliament
to bring into
force the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act,
2008,
which not only inserted the definition of a ‘victim’
under Section 2
(wa) but also statutorily recognised various rights
of such victims at
different stages of trial.
24. A ‘victim’ within the meaning of Cr.P.C. cannot
be asked to
await the commencement of trial for asserting his/her
right to
participate in the proceedings. He/She has a legally
vested right
to be heard at every step post the occurrence of an
offence. Such
a ‘victim’ has unbridled participatory rights from
the stage of
investigation till the culmination of the proceedings
in an appeal
We may hasten to clarify that ‘victim’ and
or revision.
‘complainant/informant’ are two distinct connotations
in criminal
jurisprudence, It is not always necessary that the
complainant/informant is also a ‘victim’, for even
a stranger to the
act of crime can be an ‘informant’, and similarly,
a ‘victim’ need
not be the complainant or informant of a felony. ’’
28. In the instant case, learned Magistrate has opined
that the
Court cannot monitor each and every step of investigation
and had directed
(2022) 9 see 321
19
the Investigating Officer to look into the grievance
of the Petitioner herein.
There is some force in the contention that the Magistrate
cannot monitor the
investigation step by step in a case which was registered
under Section 154
of the Code, but at the same time, Learned Magistrate
has every authority to
have a look at the investigation in particular, when
the victim has
approached the Court expressing a grievance. Learned Magistrate ought to
have exercised the power vested under Section 156(3)
in the given
circumstance. If the practice of interfering in the investigation is randomly
and regularly encouraged, it may lead the several complications.
At the
same time, the genuine grievance of the victim cannot be kept unanswered.
In that view of the matter, interference of this Court
is warranted.
29. This Court makes it clear that no opinion is made touching the
merits of the matter. It is for the investigating officer to investigate allegations
in accordance with law.
30. At this stage, for better understanding, it is apposite to extract
Section 193(3)(ii) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which reads
as under:
“193 (3) (ii): The police officer shall, within a period of ninety
days, inform the progress of the investigation by any
means
including electronic communication to the informant
or the
victim. ”
31. It is not out of place to mention that, in view of the above
provision, the informant or the victim is entitled to know the progress of the
20
investigation and it is a welcoming measure to address
the grievance of the
informant or the victim in a case, such as the Petitioner
in the present case.
Though the said provision is not there in the corresponding
Section of
Cr.P.C., i.e., Section 173 Cr.P.C., that does not bar
the informant or the
victim to know the progress of the case registered
for the offence under
Indian Penal Code.
32. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The
Order
dated 25.04.2024 passed in Crl.M.P.No.152 of 2024 by
the Learned II
Additional Judicial Magistrate of First class-Cum-
11 Additional Civil Judge,
Tirupati in connection with Crime No.222 of 2024 on
the file of the East
Police Station, Tirupati is hereby set aside. Learned
Magistrate is directed to
have fresh look over the matter and take appropriate
decision according
to
law.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
SD/- K TATA RAO
DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTfON OFFICER
One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble Smt. Justice VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI
PRATAPA
(For her Lordships Kind Perusal)
To,
1. The II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class
- cum - II Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tirupati, Chittoor District.
2. The Station House Officer, Tirupati East Police
Station, Chittoor District.
3. One CC to Sri. Namineni Pavan Kumar, Advocate [OPUC]
4. Two CC’s to The Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh
at
Amaravati [OUT]
5. Nine (09) L.R. Copies.
6. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of
Law, Justice and
Company Affairs, New Delhi.
7. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’
Association
Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi.
8. Three CD Copies
SAM
sree
HIGH COURT
DATED:31/07/2024
ORDER
CRLRC.No.404 of 2024
^ 13 NOV 292^
X nr.
^ . Current section
ALLOWING THIS CRL.R.C