HYDERABAD: Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, no police officer should investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of concerned magistrate. When a police officer approaches the magistrate for permission, it is not incumbent on him to grant the permission invariably.
It is open to the magistrate either to grant permission or refuse to grant permission in such cases but should give reasons for his decision. In a case before the High Court, an accused challenged the order of a magistrate in according permission to the police to investigate the offence registered against him under Section 182 IPC (false information with the intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person).
As for the case details, an official enquiry was conducted against some officials who indulged in corrupt practices while discharging their official duties. Prior to it, a preliminary enquiry was conducted by a police officer and as part of it, he recorded the statements of the petitioner-accused and some others.
However, during the official enquiry, they gave volte-face and did not support the version that was given by them before the police officer regarding the corrupt practices of the delinquent officials. On the contrary, they turned hostile and given false statements to help corrupt delinquent officials. Taking it seriously, the police officer lodged a complaint against them for the offence under Section 182 IPC.
Accordingly, the concerned sub-inspector of police registered the case against them for the said offence which was a non-cognizable offence and the officer (complainant) sought for permission of the concerned magistrate to investigate the matter. When the magistrate accorded permission to investigate, the accused challenged it before the High Court.
Prior permission
The counsel for the petitioner-accused contended that as per Section 155 CrPC, the police are not authorised to register FIR in respect of the information received by them which discloses the commission of a non-cognizable offence. The SHO of concerned police station should only enter the substance of the information in the diary and refer the informant to the concerned magistrate and upon receiving the order from the latter only, the officer should investigate into the matter. Except for according permission, the magistrate has not passed any “speaking order”, he pointed out.
On the other hand, the public prosecutor supported the impugned order and urged the court to dismiss the petition of the accused. After hearing both sides and perusing the material on record and various court judgments, the High Court said that in terms of Section 155 CrPC, the SHO is not authorised to investigate the non-cognizable offences without prior permission of the court.
In the present case, contrary to Section 155 CrPC and also the orders of the Andhra Pradesh police manual, the concerned SHO had registered the FIR on receiving complaint from the police officer and thereafter only sought for permission of the magistrate for investigation. The aforesaid violation is an incurable one in view of the mandatory provision laid down under Section 155 CrPC and also the AP police manual, the judge observed.
As for according permission to investigate the matter, the Court said that the concerned magistrate has not assigned any plausible reasons which prompted him to grant such permission. Besides, the magistrate has not recorded reasons for according permission. In view of the procedural violations, the Court allowed the petition by setting aside the impugned order.