@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Vijay Bishnoi, J.@mdashThis criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 01.02.2014, whereby the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as ''the trial court'') has directed the SHO, Police Station, Bagra, District Jalore to further investigate into the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 2 has submitted a written report to the SHO, Police Station, Bagra, District Jalore while alleging that when his brother Ghewa Ram was returning home in his Lorry at about 08:00 PM on 27.09.2013, then accused persons Mukesh Kumar and Geega Ram came in a Jeep bearing No. RJ-16T-1121 from his backside has deliberately dashed their Jeep into the Lorry driven by his brother Ghewa Ram. It is also alleged that about ten days back, the accused persons assaulted Ghewa Ram at the bus stand and also threatened him that they would run over him under their Jeep.
3. On receiving the said written report, the FIR No. 109/2013 was registered at Police Station, Bagra, District Jalore on 28.09.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. On 07.10.2013, the police has submitted charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
4. The trial court after taking into consideration the final report submitted by the police against the petitioner has passed an order dated 29.10.2013 while observing that before taking cognizance on the basis of final report submitted by the police against accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC, it is necessary to hear the complainant-Veerma Ram and the trial court has summoned the complainant-respondent No. 2 while posting the matter on 27.11.2013. The complainant-Veerma Ram appeared before the trial court along with injured - Ghewa Ram on 01.02.2014 and the trial court has recorded their statements and, thereafter, sent the matter to the SHO, Police Station, Bagra, District Jalore for further investigation with a direction that he would place a copy of the order passed by the trial court before the Superintendent of Police, who shall monitor the investigation.
5. Being aggrieved with the order dated 01.02.2014, the petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Magistrate has no power to record the statement of complainant and injured and to send the matter for further investigation to the SHO along with the copies of the statements. It is also contended that the order dated 01.02.2014 of sending the matter for further investigation after recording of the statements of the complainant and the injured is wholly without jurisdiction and further investigation conducted by the police pursuant to the direction given by the trial court are also without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that upon submission of final report by the police, the Magistrate has two option either to accept it or to send it back for further investigation but he has no power to record the statement of the complainant and the injured and to send the matter for further investigation along with the copies of those statements. It is contended that no such procedure as adopted by the trial court is provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Hence, the impugned order being without jurisdiction is liable to be set aside.
7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the Magistrate has ample power to direct the Investigating Officer to further investigate into the matter and can also monitor the investigation where the court finds that the investigation is not being conducted in proper manner. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that for the purpose of ensuring a proper investigation, the direction issued by the Magistrate to further investigate into the allegations levelled in the complaint in light of the statements of the complainant as well as the injured person cannot be said to be without jurisdiction in any manner. It is also contended by learned Public Prosecutor that in pursuant to the direction given by the trial court on 01.02.2014, the police has already concluded the further investigation, wherein the supplementary statements of the complainant and the injured person have been recorded and other evidence has also been collected and on the basis of that, the police has proposed to file charge-sheet against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325 and 308/34 IPC. On the strength of the above arguments, learned Public Prosecutor has prayed for dismissal of this criminal misc. petition.
8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order as well as the material available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the complainant in his written complaint dated 27.09.2013 has specifically alleged that the accused persons had deliberately dashed their Jeep into the Lorry of his brother Ghewa Ram. It is also specifically alleged that around ten days before, the accused persons had threatened the injured Ghewa Ram that they would run over him under their Jeep. It is strange that despite specific allegations to the effect that the accused persons have deliberately dashed their Jeep into the Lorry of the injured Ghewa Ram, the police has registered the FIR under Section 279 and 337 IPC. After investigation also the police has filed charge-sheet against the petitioner only for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC.
10. Now the question arose, whether the trial court is competent to summon the complainant and to record his statement and send back the matter for further investigation or not.
11. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in
"14. Section 156(3) states:
"156.(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned."
The words "as abovementioned" obviously refer to Section 156(1), which contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station.
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.
16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order reopening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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 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) Cr.P.C., 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 for its execution.
19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction (3rd Edn., p. 267):
"... If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an interminable process and the legislative intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission."
20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.
21. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. Thus in
22. Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are
23. In
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 police station concerned 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."
12. In the case in hand the learned Magistrate found that the police has not investigated the complaint filed by the complainant properly and in such circumstances he has summoned the complainant and recorded their statement and send the matter for further investigation. The learned Magistrate has done this while exercising implied powers vested in him under the provisions of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
13. In the light of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order and sending the matter for further investigation to the SHO, Police Station, Bagra, District Jalore along with the statements of the complainant and the injured recorded by it.
14. Hence, I do not find any merit in this criminal misc. petition. The same is hereby dismissed.
15. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
