Supreme Court Reiterates Wide Powers of Magistrate to Ensure Proper Police Investigation

Monitoring of FIR under section 156(3)

Shivaji Rathore 07-01-2026

The Supreme Court of India, in its landmark judgment in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (decided on 7 December 2007), has authoritatively reaffirmed the wide supervisory and corrective powers of a Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly in cases of police inaction or improper investigation

Background of the Case:-
The case arose from the death of an Indian Army officer, whose father alleged murder and complained of an improper investigation by the Government Railway Police. Dissatisfied with the police findings and Army inquiries concluding suicide, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking a CBI investigation. Upon dismissal, the matter reached the Supreme Court. While refusing to order a CBI probe, the Supreme Court used the occasion to clarify the correct legal remedy available to aggrieved citizens when the police fail to register an FIR or conduct a fair investigation. Magistrate’s Power Under Section 156(3) CrPC  The Court categorically held that Section 156(3) CrPC is very wide in scope, even though it is briefly worded. A Magistrate empowered under Section 190 CrPC can:

1. Direct the registration of an FIR,
2. Order a proper and fair investigation,
3. Issue directions where investigation is delayed, perfunctory, or biased, and
4. Monitor the investigation to ensure it is conducted lawfully

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still
not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is opento the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can
direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr. MANU/SC/8888/2006 : 2006CriLJ788 , this Court observed: The clear position therefore is 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 154 of the Code. Even if a Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing investigating 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.
13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v. State of DelhiMANU/SC/3678/ 2007 : 2007CriLJ4709 (vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, uch a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps
and pass such order orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
14. Section 156(3) states:
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 re-opening of the investigation even after the police
submits the final report,
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 F.I.R. 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 to 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’
If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting of legislation would be an indeterminable 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.

25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone
has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the
High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been 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 Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing 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. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies

The Court clarified that these powers exist both before and even after submission of a police report, and are independent of the police’s power to conduct further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC.
Doctrine of Implied Powers A significant legal principle reiterated in the judgment is the doctrine of implied powers. The Supreme Court held that when a statute confers a power on an authority, it also impliedly grants all incidental powers necessary to make that power effective. Applying this doctrine, the Court ruled that although Section 156(3) does not expressly mention the power to order registration of an FIR or monitoring of investigation, such powers are inherent and necessary to ensure a “proper investigation”

Remedy Before Approaching High Courts The Court strongly deprecated the growing tendency of litigants to directly approach High Courts under Article 226 or Section 482 CrPC for non-registration of FIRs or defective investigations. It laid down a clear hierarchy of remedies: Approach the police station under Section 154(1) CrPC, If refused, approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or Section 36 CrPC, If grievance persists, file an application before the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, or File a private complaint under Section 200 CrPC. High Courts, the Supreme Court held, should ordinarily decline interference when such effective statutory remedies are available
Limits on Magistrate’s Power:-  While affirming broad powers, the Court also clarified certain limits:
A Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI.
Such power lies only with constitutional courts under Articles 226 and 136, and that too in rare and exceptional cases.

Significance of the Judgment
The ruling in Sakiri Vasu is a cornerstone of Indian criminal procedural law. It: Strengthens judicial oversight over police functioning, Protects citizens against police arbitrariness and inaction, and
Reinforces the role of Magistrates as guardians of fair investigation at the grassroots level. The judgment continues to be widely relied upon by courts across the country in matters involving delay in FIR registration, defective investigation, and abuse of police discretion.