SAKIRI VASU versus STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 1100 · Decided: 07-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SAKIRIVASU 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 7, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition-Seeking 
investigation by CBI-Of a case, investigation whereof already 
C conducted by railway Police and Army authorities-Maintainability 
of-Held: Not maintainable-An aggrieved person has no right to 
claim investigation of a case by any particular agency of his choice-
He can only claim proper investigation-Alternative remedy of 
approachingu!ss. 36, 154 (3), 156 (3) and 200Cr. P.C. is available to 
D the person, if his FIR is not registered by the police-Availability of 
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition-But if 
available, High Court should not ordinarily interfere-Supreme Court 
and High Court also have power under Article 136 or Article 226 of 
the Constitution to order investigation by the CBI-But that shoul3 
E be done only in rare and exceptional case-Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973-ss. 36, 154(3),156(3), 200and482-Constitution 
of India, 1950-Article 136. 
F 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-s. 156 (3)-Power under-
Of Magistrate-Scope of-Discussed 
Doctrines/Principles-Doctrine of implied power. 
The son of the appellant was an Officer in the Indian Army. His 
dead body was found at Mathura Railway Station. G.R.P. 
investigated the matter and gave its report stating that the death 
G was caused due to accident or suicide. Army officials held a Court 
oflnquiry. It was concluded therein that the deceased had committed 
suicide at the railway track. The appellant made a representation 
to the Chief of the Army Staff alleging that it was a case of murder . 
llOO 
H 
r 
SAKIRI V ASU v. STATE 
1101 
--. 
and not suicide. As a result another Court of Inquiry was held. A 
Wherein it was concluded that it was a case of suicide. 
The appellant then filed a writ petition, seeking direction that 
the matter be ordered to be investigated the Central Bureau of 
Investigation. The petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
\ 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the material on record does not 
disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI. 
The mere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered c 
because he had discovered some corruption, cannot justify a CBI 
inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the Army authorities 
as well as by the G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it was a 
, 
case of suicide. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence 
, 
he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no rightto claim that 
it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice. 
D 
[Paras 34and10] [1106-A, B; 1111-G; 1112-A] 
CBI and Anr. v. Rajesh Gandhi and Anr., (1997) Cr.L.J 63, relied 
on. 
1.2. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been E 
registered by the police station, his first remedy is to approach the 
Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police 
officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P .C. If despite approaching the 
Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his 
grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under F 
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead ofrushing to the High Court by way 
of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P .C. Moreover, 
he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 
200 Cr.P.C. [Para 26] [1109-G; 1110-A] 
2.1. If an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the G 
-f 
Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and 
also can direct a proper investigation to be made, iri a case where, 
according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was 
made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor H 
1102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. Section 156(3) 
provides for a .check by the Magistrate on the police performing its 
duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. 
[Paras 11and15) [1106-C, D; 1107-E) 
Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr., JT (2006) 1 SC 10; 
B Dilawar Singhv.State of Delhi, JT (2007) 10 SC 585; CB!v.State of 
RajasthanandAnr., (2001) 3 SCC 333; R.P. Kapurv. S.P. Singh, AIR 
(1961) SC 1117; and State o/Biharv.A.C. Saldanna, AIR(1980) SC 
326, relied on. 
c 
2.2. It is clarified that even if an FIR has been registered and 
the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the 
investi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.