Magistrate May Permit Investigation on Complainant's Application Under S.155(2) CrPC, HC Holds

A Single-Judge bench of Justice Rajeev Bharti heard an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging an order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate permitting investigation under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C., the subsequent charge sheet and the summoning order arising out of N.C.R. No.30 of 2014 (Police Station Sammanpur, Ambedkar Nagar) in which the applicant sought quashing of the proceedings arising from alleged offences under Sections 352, 504 and 427 IPC.

The Court dismissed the petition and held that a Magistrate could grant permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. on an application moved by the complainant or aggrieved person and that investigation carried out pursuant to such an order was not vitiated merely because the application was not filed by a police officer. The Court followed the earlier coordinate-bench decision in Brij Lal Bhar and observed that procedural formalities in other States’ rules were not binding in Uttar Pradesh. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. imposes a restriction only on the police officer and it does not prohibit the complainant from approaching the Magistrate. The object of the provision of Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. is to ensure judicial supervision over investigation, not to restrict access to justice. Once the Magistrate has applied his judicial mind and granted permission, the investigation conducted pursuant thereto cannot be held illegal merely because the application was moved by the complainant." The Court further noted that procedural technicalities should not frustrate legitimate prosecution and relied on precedents including Sakiri Vasu to emphasise that jurisdictional illegality or miscarriage of justice must be shown to warrant interference under Section 482.

Background

The dispute arose when an N.C.R. was lodged on 26.03.2014 and the complainant moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 28.03.2014 for permission under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. to allow investigation of a non-cognizable offence. The Magistrate granted permission, investigation followed, a charge sheet was filed on 10.06.2015 and the applicant was summoned on 21.11.2015. The applicant contended that Section 155(2) required the police officer to seek the Magistrate’s order and that an order on the complainant’s application was illegal; he relied on Navin Chandra Pandey and a Karnataka High Court decision (Vijesh Pillai) which set out state practice rules. The State and opposite party relied on Brij Lal Bhar, arguing that there was no legal bar to the first informant making the application. The High Court examined Section 155(2), observed that the statute "restricts the power of investigation, but it does not specify the person who may approach the Magistrate," and held that in Uttar Pradesh there was no statutory requirement to import the procedural formalities of the Karnataka Rules. The Court followed the later coordinate bench decision in Brij Lal Bhar and distinguished the Karnataka decision as inapplicable. The petition was dismissed and any interim order stood vacated. The Court recorded that interference under Section 482 was inappropriate in the absence of jurisdictional illegality or demonstrable miscarriage of justice.

Case Details: Case No.: Application U/S 482 No.5062 of 2016 Case Title: Shiv Pratap @ Jokhu Versus State of U.P. And Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ranvijay Singh For the Respondent(s): Govt. Advocate; Amresh Singh; Shitla Prasad Tripathi