Page No. 1/7 GAHC010172012025 2025:GAU-AS:10833 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./948/2025 ARPANA SARMAH D/O MITRA DEV SARMAH SONAKI ENCLAVE BONGAON PATH, BELTOLA, GUWAHATI, PIN-781028. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:OFFICER-IN-CHARGE KOKRAJHAR POLICE STATION. 3:DR. A. DEBNATH (ARABINDA DEBNATH) HOD DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE BODOLAND UNIVERSITY KOKRAJHAR-783370 4:PROF. A.I. CHANU(AYEKPAM IBEMCHA CHANU) DEAN OF COMMERCE AND MANAGEMENT STUDIES BODOLAND UNIVESITY KOKRAJHAR- 783370. 5:THE BODOLAND UNIVERISTY KOKRAJHAR REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR AND REGISTRAR Advocate for the Petitioner : MD S HOQUE, Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, Page No. 2/7 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY ORDER Date : 05.08.2025 Heard Mr. S. Hoque, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent no. 1, State of Assam. 2. The petitioner has sought to invoke the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2023 for seeking a direction to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kokrajhar to direct Kokrajhar Police to expedite the investigation, being carried out in connection with Kokrajhar Police Station Case no. 134/2025. 3. It is stated that it was pursuant to a First Information Report [FIR] lodged by the petitioner before the Officer In-Charge, Kokrajhar Police Station against the opposite party no. 3 and the opposite party no. 4 impleaded herein, regarding hatching of a criminal conspiracy to protect the interests of an officer belonging to the Indian Administrative Services [IAS] of Assam–Meghalaya Cadre, a case was registered as Kokrajhar Police Station Case no. 134/2025 under Sections 61[2]/198/201/210/211, Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS], 2023 had been registered and thereafter, investigation ensued. 4. The petitioner has averred that despite repeated requests made by the petitioner to Kokrajhar Police Station officials, the Investigating Officer [I.O.] has not taken the matter seriously for reasons best known to them. 5. From the scheme contained in the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC.’, for short] [since repealed], more particularly, Section 154 and 156 thereto, it was settled that if a person had a grievance that the Officer In-Charge of the Jurisdictional Police Station was not registering his/her FIR under Section 154[1], CrPC, then he/she could approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 [3] CrPC. by an application in Page No. 3/7 writing. If that did not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR was not registered till then or that even after registering it, no proper investigation had been conducted, it was open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156[3], CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If an application under Section 156[3], CrPC was filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had the authority and jurisdiction to direct that the FIR be registered and also to direct that a proper investigation be made, in a case, where according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation had been made. The Magistrate under the said provision also had the authority and jurisdiction to monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 6. Section 156, CrPC reads as under :- 156. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case – [1] Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognnizable 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 above-mentioned. 7. It has been observed in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2008] 2 SCC 409, that the Magistrate had very wide powers under Section 156[3] to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose, he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly [though he cannot investigate himself]. It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, CrPC simply because a person had a grievance that his/her FIR had not been registered by Page No. 4/7 the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation had not been done by the police. For this kind of grievance, the remedy lied under Sections 36, CrPC and Section 154[3], CrPC before the Police Officers concerned at first, and if that was of no avail, under Section 156[3], CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200, CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482, CrPC. It has been observed that an alternative remedy would not be an absolute bar to prefer the writ petition but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. 8. It has been observed as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu [supra] that there was an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156[3], CrPC to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the Officer In-Charge of the concerned Police Station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that might be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring of the same. 9. It is also apt to refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhir Bhaskarrao vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, reported in [2016] 6 SCC 277, :- 2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3] CrPC. If such an application under Section 156[3] CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying Page No. 5/7 for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3], CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156[3], CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate [as investigation is the job of the police]. Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court. 10. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘the BNSS’, for short]. The provisions contained in Section 175, BNSS is akin to the provisions contained in Section 156, CrPC. 11. Section 175 of the BNSS reads as under :- 175. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case - [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 Page No. 6/7 Chapter XIV : Provided that considering the nature and gravity of the offence, the Superintendent of Police may require the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case. [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 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section [4] of Section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned. [4] Any Magistrate empowered under section 210, may, upon receiving a complaint against a public servant arising in course of the discharge of his official duties, order investigation, subject to – [a] receiving a report containing facts and circumstances of the incident from the officer superior to him; and [b] after consideration of the assertions made by the public servant as to the situation that led to the incident so alleged. 12. Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 156[3], CrPC and Section 175[3], BNSS and the observations made in the decisions mentioned above, this Court is of the considered view that the power used to be exercised by the Magistrate earlier under Section 156[3], CrPC is also exercisable under Section 175[3], BNSS. This Court is also of the considered view that if the petitioner has any grievance as regards the manner in which the investigation is being carried out he can approach the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned under Section 175[3], BNSS and if he does so, the Magistrate can ensure, if prima facie satisfied, a proper investigation in the matter and he can also monitor the investigation. 13. In view of such settled position of law and the fact situation projected in the instant criminal petition, this Court is not entertaining the instant criminal petition. While not entertaining the instant criminal petition, it is observed that the petitioner has the liberty to Page No. 7/7 avail the remedy under the BNSS by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate by following the procedure. JUDGE Comparing Assistant