Magistrate has duty to monitor investigation after passing order as per S 156 of CRPC

1. In view of our order dated 18th June 2025, learned

Registrar (Judicial) has given the report. It was in the background

that In-charge 6th Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad

viz. Mr. S.S. Chhallani had made some allegations against the

Registry of this Court that the communication was not made

promptly. Learned Registrar (Judicial) has stated that, in fact, the

communication was made with the concerned Court of the Magistrate

through District Court by sending e-mail on 15.04.2025 and the

communication was also sent through regular post. Flag ‘A’ is the

copy of e-mail sent on 15.04.2025. In addition to that, even the

telephonic call was given by Mr. A.G. Dusane, Assistant Section

Officer, Criminal “A” Branch of this Court’s Registry to the District

Court, which was answered by Mr. Vishnu Khakare, Clerk and

Mr. Shobhraj Khaire, Clerk on 02.05.2025 and 03.05.2025, whereby

it was communicated by the Assistant Section Officer that the report

should be submitted at the earliest. When the report was not given by

the concerned Court, a note was taken on the Farad Sheet.

2. A packet containing report was received from the concerned

Court on 09.05.2025. In fact, when the report has been given by the

concerned Magistrate, he had highlighted certain words/statements in

bold text unnecessarily and he states that “The communication was

sent by Ordinary post instead by an e-mail, etc.” He was not within

his limits when he used the word “instead”. He cannot even

suggest as to how the communication should be from this Court to his Court. Unnecessarily, even when he was in-charge of the concerned Court, he has used such language. We, therefore, caution him that, henceforth, in any communication, which he would make to the Superiors, he should use proper words and be submissive.

3. In fact, we were concerned with the fact that the

concerned Magistrate had directed MIDC CIDCO Police Station,

Aurangabad to register an offence and carry out the investigation in

the order passed under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”), way back on 10.09.2012. It

appears that neither the police had carried out the investigation nor

the concerned Magistrate, who sent the matter for investigation, had

monitored the investigation. It has been informed by the learned

Magistrate that the police registered the crime as M-Case No.7 of

2012 and the copy of F.I.R. was forwarded to Learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class Court on 24.09.2012. Here, we may not go into

the aspect at this stage as to how it should be registered as M-Case.

But the legal position on this point is very clear that when such order

is passed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. by any Magistrate, then in

Madhu Bala Vs. Suresh Kumar, [AIR 1997 SC 3104] and later on, in

Suresh Chand Jain Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another,

[AIR 2001 SC 571], the position of law has been made clear. It has

been held in Suresh Chand Jain (Supra) that –

“Any Judicial Magistrate, before taking cognizance of the offence,

can order investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. If he

does so, he is not to examine the complainant on oath because he

was not taking cognizance of any offence therein. For the purpose

of enabling the police to start investigation it is open to the

magistrate to direct the police to register an FIR. There is nothing

illegal in doing so. After all registration of an FIR involves only

the process of entering the substance of the information relating

to the commission of the cognizable offence in a book kept by the

officer-in-charge of the police station as indicated in Section

Section 154 of the Code. Even if a magistrate does not say in so

many words while directing investigation under Section 156(3)

of the Code that an FIR should be registered, it is the duty of the

officer-in-charge of the police station to register the FIR regarding

the cognizable offence disclosed by the complaint because that

police officer could take further steps contemplated in Chapter

XII of the Code only thereafter.”

4. That means, after the registration of the F.I.R., the police

officers would get all the powers of investigation as contemplated

under Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and therefore, there ought not to have

been any difference between the F.I.Rs. lodged directly with the

police and the F.I.Rs. those are registered in view of the order passed

under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

5. While answering to one of our questions to the learned

Magistrate as to whether he, i.e. (including his predecessors), had

monitored the investigation at any point of time or not, it has been

answered that no communication was ever made by the Court of the

concerned Magistrate to the police station regarding the progress in

the investigation. In fact, in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others,[(2008) 2 SCC 409], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while taking note of the powers of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., has made the observation regarding monitoring of the investigation by the Magistrate, which we have, in fact, already quoted in our order dated 07th April 2025.

6. Under the said circumstance, when there is absolutely no

investigation made since the registration of the F.I.R., we direct Police

Inspector, MIDC CIDCO Police Station, Aurangabad, to carry out the

investigation in respect of the said F.I.R., which is registered as

M-Case No.7 of 2012, as contemplated under law. We hope that the

said investigation would be expedited and would be taken to its

logical end by the police.

7. We also direct the learned Magistrate to adhere to the

observations in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) and monitoring the investigation

in such matters including this, wherein the investigation has been

directed under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.

8. While getting the report, the concerned Magistrate has

stated that he is due for transfer in Annual General Transfer-2025. We

direct the learned Registrar (Judicial) to give the copy of this order to

the concerned Magistrate, wherever he has been posted, so that it

would be helpful to him in future communications to be made by him

with the Superiors.

9. With these observations, we dispose of the Writ Petition.

 [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH ]

 JUDGE

[ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]

 JUDGE

asd