2026:HHC:35209 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 884 of 2026 Reserved on: 14.08.2026 Date of Decision: 20.08.2026 Mousam ...Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ...Respondents _______________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the Petitioner : M/s Sambhav Bhasin & Muskan, Advocates. For Respondents No.1 to 3/State : Mr Lokender Kutlehria, Additional Advocate General. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for re- investigation/fair investigation of FIR No. 112/2022 dated 14.09.2022 registered in the Police Station, Rampur Bushehar, District Shimla, H.P. 2. It has been asserted that the petitioner had lodged an FIR before the Police Station, Rampur Bushehar. The police completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet before the Court. The 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2026:HHC:35209 learned Trial Court took cognisance and committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Rampur. The Investigating Agency wrongly confined the prosecution to respondent no.4, whereas the record disclosed the involvement of respondents nos. 4 to 7. The charge sheet was filed for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, whereas the allegations in the FIR and the result of investigation disclosed the commission of an offence punishable under Section 304B of the IPC. The investigation conducted by the Investigating Agency suffers from serious infirmity. The final report was filed without a fair, proper and comprehensive investigation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the police be directed to carry out a comprehensive investigation in the FIR and especially with reference to Section 304B of the IPC. 3. I have heard Mr Sambhav Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3/State. 4. Mr Sambhav Bhasin, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the police had not properly investigated the FIR and the allegations in the FIR and the statements recorded by the police showed prima facie commission of an offence punishable under 3 2026:HHC:35209 Section 304B of the IPC against the respondent nos. 4 to 7. However, the police had failed to file the charge sheet against the respondents no. 4 to 7. Therefore, he prayed that the direction be issued to the police to carry out a proper and fair investigation. 5. Mr Lokender Kutlehria, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents No.1 to 3/State, submitted that there is no infirmity in the investigation carried out by the police and the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the learned Magistrate for the redressal of his grievances. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 7. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409: (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440: 2007 SCC OnLine SC 1488 that the Magistrate has the jurisdiction to order the proper investigation under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, the High Court should not entertain the petitions under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or the writ petition for directing the police to carry out the investigation and should relegate the petitioner to his alternative 4 2026:HHC:35209 remedy under Section 154(3) and Section 36 of CrPC. It was observed at page 415: 24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view that although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is 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 police station concerned to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that may be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring the same. Even though these powers have not been expressly mentioned in Section 156(3) CrPC, we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision. 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternative remedy, first under Section 154(3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3). xxxxx 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers 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). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, 5 2026:HHC:35209 and if that is 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. xxxxx 30. It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 CrPC if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by the officer in charge of the police station concerned, such aggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police or other police officer superior in rank to the officer in charge of the police station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do the investigation vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan [(2001) 3 SCC 333: 2001 SCC (Cri) 524] (SCC vide para 11), R.P. Kapur v. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon [AIR 1961 SC 1117], etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct the Inspector General, Vigilance, to take over the investigation of a cognizable offence registered at a police station vide State of Bihar v. A.C. Saldanha [(1980) 1 SCC 554: 1980 SCC (Cri) 272: AIR 1980 SC 326]. 8. It was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 17 SCC 1: (2020) 3 SCC (Cri) 228: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1346 that the Magistrate can exercise the jurisdiction vested in him, even after filing the charge sheet under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. It was observed at page 19: 25. It is thus clear that the Magistrate's power under Section 156(3) CrPC is very wide, for it is this judicial authority that must be satisfied that a proper investigation by the police takes place. To ensure that a “proper investigation” takes place in the sense of a fair and just investigation by the police —which such Magistrate is to supervise—Article 21 of the Constitution of India mandates that all powers necessary, which may also be incidental or implied, are available to the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation which, without 6 2026:HHC:35209 doubt, would include the ordering of further investigation after a report is received by him under Section 173(2); and which power would continue to enure in such Magistrate at all stages of the criminal proceedings until the trial itself commences. Indeed, even textually, the “investigation” referred to in Section 156(1) CrPC would, as per the definition of “investigation” under Section 2(h), include all proceedings for collection of evidence conducted by a police officer; which would undoubtedly include proceedings by way of further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC. 9. Therefore, the petitioner should have approached the Magistrate for seeking proper investigation into the matter, if the investigation has not been conducted fairly, and the petitioner cannot approach this court as per the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra); hence the present petition is dismissed, and the petitioner is relegated to his remedy under law as noticed above. 10. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 20th August, 2026 (Nikita)