Can Magistrate direct investigation under Section 156(3) on my complaint

I have filed a complaint under Section 200 of the code of criminal procedure. When my advocate presented that complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, he heard the advocate and directed the police authority to investigate the matter. I want to know that can the Magistrate direct an investigation under Section 156(3) on my complaint? He did not take evidence and take our statement. I think he is doing his job under pressure from police authority because the matter is related to a property dispute with a police officer. Now the police are compelling me to withdraw my complaint. I am…

Can Magistrate direct investigation under Section 156(3) on my complaint. I have filed a complaint under Section 200 of the code of criminal procedure. When my advocate presented that complaint before the Metropolitan Magistrate, he heard the advocate and directed the police authority to investigate the matter. I want to know that can the Magistrate direct an investigation under Section 156(3) on my complaint? He did not take evidence and take our statement. I think he is doing his job under pressure from police authority because the matter is related to a property dispute with a police officer. Now the police are compelling me to withdraw my complaint. I am in limbo and could not understand what to do in this circumstances. Please help.

The Magistrate has exercised his power as provided to him under the provisions of the code of criminal procedure (crpc). When the Magistrate receives a complaint under Section 200 crpc he can take cognisance of the alleged offence under Section 190(1)(a) crpc. If he takes cognisance then he shall record the statement of the complainant and witnesses thereafter issue the process (summons/warrant) under Section 204 crpc.

It is not mandatory for the Magistrate to take cognisance of offence on each complaint. He has the power to exercise his discretion and do a thing which he deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 

When the Magistrate does not take cognisance but thinks that a thorough investigation would meet the interest of justice, he can direct the police under section 156(3) crpc to conduct an investigation and submit a report under Section 173 crpc. 

The Magistrate, without taking cognisance, can direct the concerned police officer to conduct investigation under Section 156(3) crpc. When the investigating officer submits a report under Section 173 crpc then Magistrate takes cognisance. 

The Magistrate has followed the above provision hence, you cannot say that he is wrong. So far as undue influence of a police officer is concerned, you can take proper action against them. You should move an application to the Magistrate for monitoring of investigation. 

In Sakri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 the Supreme Court has held that the Magistrate has ampel power to monitor investigation. He can change the investigating officer or call status report from the investigating officer and pass any appropriate order in the interest of fair investigation. 

You should specially mention in the application about the undue influence from the police officers. The Magistrate can direct the superintendent of police to initiate departmental proceedings against those police officers.

Tags:

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Shivendra Pratap Singh

Advocate

Advocate Shivendra, practicing law since 2005, specializes in criminal and matrimonial cases, extensive litigatin experience before the High Court, Sessions court & Family Court. He established kanoonirai.com in 2014 to provide dependable and pragmatic legal support. Over the years, he has successfully assisted thousands of clients, making the platform a trusted resource for criminal and matrimonial dispute resolution in India.

Related Matters

Husband is demanding DNA test to check the paternity of our son in divorce case

The law does not permit a husband to compel his wife or child to undergo a DNA test merely on the basis of suspicion. In Gautam Kundu v. State of West Bengal (1993) 3 SCC 418, the Supreme Court held that a blood or DNA test cannot be directed as a matter of course. Before seeking such a direction, the husband must establish a strong prima facie case by proving that he had no access to his wife during the period when the child could have been conceived.

क्या चेक बाउंस का केस मियाद समाप्त होने के बाद भी दाखिल हो सकता है

Negotiable Instruments Act के अंतर्गत, वैधानिक अवधि समाप्त होने के बाद भी चेक बाउंस का मामला दायर किया जा सकता है। यदि शिकायतकर्ता देरी का उचित कारण प्रस्तुत करता है, तो न्यायालय विलंब को क्षमा कर शिकायत स्वीकार कर सकता है। नोटिस के बाद निर्धारित समय में भुगतान न होने पर कार्यवाही प्रारंभ की जा सकती है।

Cancellation of bail when accused tempering with witness

Seeking the cancellation of bail is possible when an accused person tampers with witnesses or influences a trial. This guide explains legal grounds for such actions, focusing on mandatory procedures under Section 15-A of the SC/ST Act and post-bail threats. Learn how victims can approach higher courts to ensure a fair trial and protect their rights.

Evidence of interested witness is admissible in criminal proceedings

In criminal law, the testimony of a related witness cannot be discarded solely due to their relationship with the victim. This legal overview clarifies the distinction between related and interested witnesses, citing key Supreme Court rulings. It explains how natural witnesses provide admissible evidence that reliably forms the basis for a conviction, even without independent corroboration.

SDM cannot attach property under section 146 crpc when civil suit is pending

A Sub-Divisional Magistrate cannot legally attach property under Section 146 of the CrPC if a civil suit regarding the same property is already pending. This guide explains why such orders lack jurisdiction and outlines the proper legal remedy, including filing a petition under Section 482 CrPC to the High Court based on established Supreme Court precedents.