- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Central Bureau Of Investigation Through S.P, Jaipur v. State Of Rajasthan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
Multiple complaints alleging serious offences were filed before Magistrates in different States. In each case the Magistrate, acting under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”), directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to investigate and to file a final report. The CBI challenged these orders in the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi, arguing that a Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to compel the CBI to investigate, especially without the consent of the State Government under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (“Delhi Act”). Both High Courts upheld the Magistrates’ directions, creating conflict with contrary views earlier expressed by the High Courts of Gujarat and Karnataka. The CBI appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a Magistrate, acting under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, has the power to direct the CBI (Delhi Special Police Establishment) to investigate cognizable offences.
- Whether such a direction can be justified where the State Government has given consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act.
Arguments of the Parties
CBI (Appellant)
- Section 156(3) CrPC authorises a Magistrate to order investigation only by an “officer in charge of a police station,” not by the CBI.
- Under Section 6 of the Delhi Act, CBI officers cannot exercise powers in a State without that State’s consent; therefore, a Magistrate’s order to the CBI is invalid in the absence of such consent.
Respondents / Views Relied on by High Courts
- Relied on Supreme Court observations in State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal (1985 1 SCC 317), emphasising the phrase “when the court gives a direction to CBI to conduct an investigation” to argue that any court, including a Magistrate, may so direct.
- Contended that once a State grants consent under Section 6 of the Delhi Act, a Magistrate can legitimately enlist the CBI.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| State of W.B. v. Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 | Observation that Section 6 of Delhi Act does not apply when “the court” directs CBI investigation. | Held not decisive; the case involved High Court direction, not a Magistrate’s, and cannot expand Section 156(3) powers. |
| State of Kerala v. Kolakkacan Moosa Haji (1993) 2 KLT 609; 1994 Cri LJ 1288 (Ker), affirmed by SC (8-4-1997) | Magistrate cannot order investigation by officers other than the officer-in-charge of a police station. | Adopted as directly analogous; the same limitation applies vis-à-vis the CBI. |
| Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Administration 1988 Supp SCC 482 | High Court’s power under Article 226 to order CBI investigation. | Cited to distinguish constitutional court powers from Magistrate’s statutory power. |
| Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub-Inspector of Police (1994) 1 SCC 536 | Supreme Court’s power under Articles 32/142 to direct CBI probe. | Reinforced that such powers are exceptional and constitutional, unlike Section 156(3). |
| Mohd. Anis v. Union of India 1994 Supp (1) SCC 145 | Pending reference on whether a court can order CBI investigation without State consent. | Court noted the reference but proceeded, holding that Magistrate’s power is confined to Section 156(3). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Section 156(3) CrPC permits a Magistrate to “order such an investigation as abovementioned,” i.e., the investigation referred to in Section 156(1) which can be undertaken only by “any officer in charge of a police station.”
2. The CrPC defines “police station” (Section 2(s)) as a place declared by the State Government and “officer in charge of a police station” (Section 2(o)) as the officer commanding such station. The CBI, constituted under the Delhi Act, is not a police station so declared, nor are its officers “officers in charge” of any such station for the purposes of the CrPC.
3. Section 36 CrPC allows superior police officers to exercise the powers of an officer in charge, but this enlarges police authority, not judicial power. A Magistrate’s order must still be directed to a local police station; superior officers may then lawfully take over the investigation internally.
4. Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Act merely enable the Central Government to extend CBI jurisdiction to a State with that State’s consent; they do not confer on Magistrates any authority to command the CBI.
5. Constitutional courts (High Courts under Article 226 and the Supreme Court under Articles 32 and 142) possess extraordinary powers to direct CBI investigations in rare cases; those powers are distinct from, and cannot be read into, the Magistrate’s statutory powers.
6. Earlier reliance on Sampat Lal was misplaced: that decision dealt with a High Court order and did not address a Magistrate’s competence.
7. Consequently, a Magistrate’s jurisdiction under Section 156(3) cannot extend to ordering the CBI to investigate.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The appeals are allowed; the orders of the Magistrates directing the CBI to investigate and the supporting judgments of the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi are set aside. A Magistrate acting under Section 156(3) CrPC cannot compel the CBI to conduct an investigation.
Implications: The decision resolves conflicting High Court authority and firmly limits Magistrates to ordering investigations only by local police stations. Constitutional courts retain discretion to assign the CBI in exceptional circumstances, but Magistrates do not. Ongoing or future investigations by jurisdictional police stations on the same complaints remain unaffected. Notably, the Supreme Court, exercising its own extraordinary power, directed the CBI to investigate FIR No. 32/99 of Hari Nagar Police Station, underscoring the contrast between constitutional and magisterial authority.
K.T Thomas, J.— Has a Magistrate power to direct the Central Bureau of Investigation to conduct investigation into any offence? This question, seemingly ingenuous, has become compounded with divergent verdicts pronounced by different High Courts. While the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi answered the question in the affirmative, the High Courts of Gujarat and Karnataka have answered it in the negative. These appeals are filed at the instance of the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) in challenge of the judgments of the High Courts of Rajasthan and Delhi by which the orders passed by certain Magistrates were upheld.
2. It is not necessary to narrate the facts in each case. The common feature in all the appeals is, when a complaint was filed before a Magistrate alleging serious offences, he ordered investigation to be conducted by CBI and on completion of the investigation the final report was required to be filed. We may now mention what happened thereafter to one of the cases before us. CBI challenged the order of the Magistrate before the High Court of Delhi contending that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to order CBI to conduct the investigation, at least without obtaining consent of the State Government concerned as required under Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, (“the Delhi Act” for short). CBI sought support for the said contention from some of the earlier decisions rendered by Single Judges of the Delhi High Court. When the matter was placed before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, a contrary view was taken and the Bench held that the Magistrate has the power to do so. The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, in reaching the said view, has mainly relied on the observations made by this Court in State of W.B v. Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317. Learned Judges highlighted the following observation contained in Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317:
“In our considered opinion, Section 6 of the (Delhi) Act does not apply when the court gives a direction to CBI to conduct an investigation and counsel for the parties rightly did not dispute this position. In this view, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the appellate decision of the Division Bench appointing DIG, CBI to inquire into the matter would not be open to attack for want of sanction under Section 6 of the (Delhi) Act.”
3. Learned Judges gave emphasis to the words “when the court gives a direction to CBI to conduct an investigation”. The Division Bench of the High Court took it for granted that what this Court meant by the word “court” as used in the said observation in Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 should be understood as any court. The Division Bench declined to accept the view of the Karnataka High Court (in one of the decisions) that what the Supreme Court meant in Sampat Lal case (1985) 1 SCC 317 was the High Court and not any court.
4. It is unnecessary for us to resolve the controversy fomented up with the expression “court” in Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 because the question whether a Magistrate has the power to direct CBI to conduct the investigation was not the issue involved in Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 at all. The fact-situation in Sampat Lal (1985) 1 SCC 317 was centred on the direction issued by the High Court. That apart, it is not advisable to read more than what is contained in a judgment.
5. For deciding the present question we may refer to the powers of the Magistrate in ordering an investigation. There are three provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “the Code”) by which a Magistrate can order investigation to be conducted. They are Sections 155, 156 and 202 of the Code. Among them Section 155 concerns only with the investigation into non-cognizable offences whereas Section 202 only enables a Magistrate to have the assistance of an investigation conducted either by the police or by any other person, for the limited purpose of deciding whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding with the complaint. Hence we need not vex our mind with those two provisions. It is Section 156 of the Code which is relevant for the present purpose as it deals with investigation into cognizable offences. The section reads thus:
“156. Police officer's power to investigate cognizable cases.—(1) Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognizable case which a court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.
(2) No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.
(3) Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as abovementioned.”
6. If the power of a Magistrate to order an investigation by CBI in non-cognizable cases cannot be traced in the above provision, it is not possible to trace such power in any other provision of the Code. What is contained in sub-section (3) of Section 156, is the power to order the investigation referred to in sub-section (1), because the words “order such an investigation as abovementioned” in sub-section (3) are unmistakably clear as referring to the other sub-section. Thus the power is to order an “officer in charge of a police station” to conduct investigation.
7. The two expressions “police station” and “officer in charge of a police station” have been given separate definitions in the Code. Section 2(o) of the Code defines “officer in charge of a police station” as under:
“ 2. (o) ‘officer in charge of a police station’ includes, when the officer in charge of the police station is absent from the station house or unable from illness or other cause to perform his duties, the police officer present at the station house who is next in rank to such officer and is above the rank of Constable or, when the State Government so directs, any other police officer so present;”
8. Section 2(s) defines a “police station” as under:
“2. (s) ‘police station’ means any post or place declared generally or specially by the State Government, to be a police station, and includes any local area specified by the State Government in this behalf;”
9. It is clear that a place or post declared by the Government as police station, must have a police officer in charge of it and if he, for any reason, is absent in the station house, the officer who is next in the junior rank present in the police station, shall perform the function as officer in charge of that police station. The primary responsibility for conducting investigation into offences in cognizable cases vests with such police officer. Section 156(3) of the Code empowers a Magistrate to direct such officer in charge of the police station to investigate any cognizable case over which such Magistrate has jurisdiction.
10. In this context a reference has to be made to Section 36 of the Code which says that:
“36. Police Officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station.”
11. This means any other police officer, who is superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station, can exercise the same powers of the officer in charge of a police station and when he so exercises the power he would do it in his capacity as officer in charge of the police station. But when a Magistrate orders investigation under Section 156(3), he can only direct an officer in charge of a police station to conduct such investigation and not a superior police officer, though such officer can exercise such powers by virtue of Section 36 of the Code. Nonetheless, when such an order is passed, any police officer superior in rank of such officer, can as well exercise the power to conduct an investigation, and all such investigations would then be deemed to be the investigation conducted by the officer in charge of a police station. Section 36 of the Code is not meant to substitute the magisterial power envisaged in Section 156(3) of the Code, though it could supplement the powers of an officer in charge of a police station. It is permissible for any superior officer of police to take over the investigation from such officer in charge of the police station either suo motu or on the direction of the superior officer or even that of the Government.
12. In a decision rendered by the Kerala High Court the complaint was forwarded by a Magistrate to the Inspector General of Police (Crimes) for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code. When the State challenged the said order of the Magistrate the High Court held that a Magistrate cannot order any police officer, other than one who is in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation, though the Government in exercise of their executive powers can authorise any superior police officer to investigate a case and such direction can be issued by the higher officer to his subordinate officer in the police department. The said decision is reported in State of Kerala v. Kolakkacan Moosa Haji (1993) 2 KLT 609, 1994 Cri LJ 1288 (Ker). A two-Judge Bench of this Court (G.N Ray and G.B Pattanaik, JJ.) has affirmed the said decision of the Kerala High Court as per order dated 8-4-1997 in Criminal Appeal No. 410 of 1994. The principle involved in the said case would as well be applicable when the Magistrate is approached to direct CBI for conducting investigation.
13. Section 5 of the Delhi Act enables the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the Delhi Police Establishment to any area in a State. Section 6 of the Delhi Act says that:
“6. Nothing contained in Section 5 shall be deemed to enable any member of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to exercise powers and jurisdiction in any area in a State, not being a Union Territory or railway area, without the consent of the Government of that State.”
A contention was made before us that when the State Government gives consent for CBI to investigate any offence within the area of the State it would be permissible for the Magistrate to direct the officer of CBI to conduct such investigation. What is envisaged in Sections 5 and 6 of the Delhi Act is not one of conferring power on a Magistrate to order CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of Section 156(3) of the Code.
14. True, powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and of the Supreme Court under Article 32 or Article 142(1) of the Constitution can be invoked, though sparingly, for giving such direction to CBI to investigate in certain cases, (vide Kashmeri Devi v. Delhi Admn. 1988 Supp SCC 482 and Maniyeri Madhavan v. Sub-Inspector of Police (1994) 1 SCC 536). A two-Judge Bench of this Court has by an order dated 10-3-1989, referred the question whether the High Court can order CBI to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf under Section 6 of the Delhi Act.
15. In Mohd. Anis v. Union of India 1994 Supp (1) SCC 145 Ahmadi, J. (as his Lordship then was) has observed thus:
“6. True it is, that a Division Bench of this Court made an order on 10-3-1989 referring the question whether a court can order CBI, an establishment under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, to investigate a cognizable offence committed within a State without the consent of that State Government or without any notification or order having been issued in that behalf. In our view, merely because the issue is referred to a larger Bench everything does not grind to a halt. The reference to the expression ‘court’ in that order cannot in the context mean the Apex Court for the reason that the Apex Court has been conferred extraordinary powers by Article 142(1) of the Constitution so that it can do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.”
16. As the present discussion is restricted to the question whether a Magistrate can direct CBI to conduct investigation in exercise of his powers under Section 156(3) of the Code it is unnecessary for us to travel beyond the scope of that issue. We, therefore, reiterate that the magisterial power cannot be stretched under the said sub-section beyond directing the officer in charge of a police station to conduct the investigation.
17. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned orders of the Magistrates as well as the judgments of the High Court are hereby set aside. But this would not prejudice any investigation to be conducted on the FIR registered or to be registered by the police station concerned in respect of the complaints involved in these appeals.
18. In Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 1998, when special leave was granted the orders of the Magistrate directing CBI to conduct investigation were stayed. However, this Court permitted the complainant in the case, to move the Magistrate again for appropriate order for investigation of the offences. Pursuant thereto, a direction was given by the Magistrate concerned to the officer in charge of Hari Nagar Police Station, New Delhi, and on the strength of the said direction FIR No. 32/99 was registered. We considered the facts alleged in the said case and we deem it that it requires to be investigated by a specialised agency, like CBI. Hence we order CBI to take up investigation in FIR No. 32/99 of Hari Nagar Police Station.
19. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
Alert