The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has held that a Magistrate is empowered to grant permission for the investigation of a non-cognizable case under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) on an application moved by the complainant or an aggrieved person. The Court dismissed a plea challenging the validity of an investigation ordered on the complainant’s request, clarifying that the statutory provision restricts the police from investigating without an order but does not specify who must seek such an order.
Case Background
The matter, titled Shiv Pratap @ Jokhu vs. State of U.P. And Anr. (Application U/S 482 No.5062 of 2016), arose from a Non-Cognizable Report (N.C.R.) lodged on March 26, 2014, under Sections 352, 504, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Sammanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar.
Following the registration of the N.C.R., the complainant moved an application before the Chief Judicial Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the matter under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. The Magistrate allowed the application on March 28, 2014. Subsequently, the investigation was conducted, a charge sheet was submitted on June 10, 2015, and the applicant was summoned by the court on November 21, 2015. The applicant, Shiv Pratap @ Jokhu, approached the High Court seeking to quash these proceedings.
Arguments
Counsel for the applicant, Shri Ranvijay Singh, argued that under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., permission for investigation could only be sought by a police officer. He contended that since the application was moved by the complainant, the permission granted by the Magistrate was illegal, thereby vitiating the entire investigation and subsequent proceedings.
The applicant relied on the judgment in Navin Chandra Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (1995), arguing that the responsibility lies with the police to obtain the order. Reliance was also placed on the Karnataka High Court judgment in Vijesh Pillai Vs. State of Karnataka (2023), which laid down guidelines requiring Magistrates to reject requisitions unless submitted by a police officer.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. and counsel for the opposite party relied on the judgment in Brij Lal Bhar Vs. State of U.P. (2006). They submitted that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. mandates an “order” of a Magistrate but does not legally bar the first informant from moving such an application.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Rajeev Bharti, presiding over Court No. 23, examined the statutory provision and the conflicting precedents. The Court observed that Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. provides that “no police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate.”
Justice Bharti noted that while the provision restricts the power of investigation, “it does not specify the person who may approach the Magistrate.”
Addressing the precedents, the Court followed the later co-ordinate bench decision in Brij Lal Bhar, which held that the Magistrate may pass an order on the application of the police or the first informant. The Court stated:
“The object of the provision of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is to ensure judicial supervision over investigation, not to restrict access to justice. Once the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and granted permission, the investigation conducted pursuant thereto cannot be held illegal merely because the application was moved by the complainant.”
Regarding the applicant’s reliance on the Karnataka High Court’s decision in Vijesh Pillai, the Court distinguished the matter, noting that the Karnataka judgment was based on the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968. Justice Bharti held that those rules have “no application in the State of Uttar Pradesh” and that there are no equivalent specific rules in U.P. requiring such procedural formalities.
The Court emphasized that procedural provisions should be interpreted to advance justice. Citing the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008), the bench reiterated that a Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation.
Decision
The High Court dismissed the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., stating that no ground for interference was made out. The Court concluded:
“This Court holds that permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. may be granted by the Magistrate on an application moved by the complainant or any aggrieved person, and the investigation conducted pursuant thereto is not vitiated.”
The interim order was vacated, and the challenge to the charge sheet and summoning order was rejected.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Shiv Pratap @ Jokhu vs. State of U.P. And Anr.
- Case No: Application U/S 482 No.5062 of 2016
- Judge: Justice Rajeev Bharti
