HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 2 S.C.R. 997 · Decided: 10-02-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 2 S.C.R. 997 
HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Criminal Appeal No. 110 of2016) 
FEBRUARY I 0, 2016 
[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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
997 
Para 10 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F. 
G 
H 
998 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CR1MINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
B 
c 
D 
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 
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. 
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 
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. 
F 
G 
H 
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. 
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 :- . 
"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 
HAMANT YASHWANT DHAGE v. STATE OF 
MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS [SHIVA KIRT! SINGH, J.] 
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. 
In view oftlie settled position in Sakiri Vasu's (supra), the impugned 
judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.