Holding

A writ petition seeking CBI investigation is not maintainable where no prima facie case exists and the petitioner has no right to dictate the investigating agency; alternative remedies under the CrPC must be exhausted, and CBI investigation may be ordered only in rare, exceptional cases.

Summary

The appellant, the father of a deceased Army Major, alleged that his son was murdered because he had uncovered corruption, and sought a direction that the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) conduct a probe. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, and the appellant appealed. The Supreme Court held that a petitioner cannot compel investigation by a specific agency; he may only demand a proper investigation and must first exhaust statutory remedies under the CrPC. The Court explained the appropriate alternative remedies – approaching the Superintendent of Police under Sec. 154(3), Sec. 36, filing an application under Sec. 156(3) before a magistrate, or invoking Sec. 200 – and emphasized that the existence of such remedies bars a writ petition except in rare, exceptional cases. It clarified that a magistrate’s power under Sec. 156(3) includes implied authority to order FIR registration and ensure a proper investigation, but not to order a CBI inquiry. The Court reiterated that the High Court may order a CBI investigation under Art. 226/136 only when a prima‑facie case exists, which was absent here. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition seeking CBI investigation is maintainable when other investigations have been conducted and no prima facie case exists.
Whether an aggrieved person has a right to direct investigation by a particular agency under Art. 226/136.
What alternative remedies are available under the CrPC for grievances about non‑registration of FIR or improper investigation.
Scope and implied powers of a magistrate under Sec. 156(3) CrPC to order FIR registration and ensure proper investigation.
Whether the existence of alternative statutory remedies bars the filing of a writ petition.
Whether a High Court can order a CBI investigation under Art. 226/136 and the circumstances permitting such an order.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 154(3), s. 156(3), s. 173(8), s. 190, s. 200, s. 36, s. 482
Constitution of Indias. Article 136, s. Article 226

Subjects

CBI investigationwrit petitionArticle 226Article 136CrPC Section 156(3)alternative remedymagistrate powersprima facie caseinvestigation by particular agencyhigh court jurisdiction

Judgment

A SAKIRIVASU
r
v.
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

DECEMBER 7, 2007
B
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.)

Constitution ofIndia, 1950-Article 226-Writ Petition-Seeking
investigation by CBI-Of a case, investigation whereof already
C conducted by railway Police and Army authorities-Maintainability
of-Held: Not maintainable-An aggrieved person has no right to
claim investigation ofa case by any particular agency ofhis choice-
He can only claim proper investigation-Alternative remedy of
approachingu!ss. 36, 154 (3), 156 (3) and 200Cr. P.C. is available to
D the person, if his FIR is not registered by the police-Availability of
alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition-But if
available, High Court should not ordinarily interfere-Supreme Court
and High Court also have power under Article 136 or Article 226 of
the Constitution to order investigation by the CBI-But that shoul3
E be done only in rare and exceptional case-Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973-ss. 36, 154(3),156(3), 200and482-Constitution
ofIndia, 1950-Article 136.
Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973-s. 156 (3)-Power under-
OfMagistrate-Scope of-Discussed
F
Doctrines/Principles-Doctrine ofimpliedpower.
The son of the appellant was an Officer in the Indian Army. His
dead body was found at Mathura Railway Station. G.R.P.
investigated the matter and gave its report stating that the death
G was caused due to accident or suicide. Army officials held a Court
oflnquiry. It was concluded therein that the deceased had committed
suicide at the railway track. The appellant made a representation
to the Chief of the Army Staff alleging that it was a case of murder .
llOO
H
SAKIRI VASU v. STATE 1101

--. and not suicide. As a result another Court of Inquiry was held. A
Wherein it was concluded that it was a case of suicide.
The appellant then filed a writ petition, seeking direction that
the matter be ordered to be investigated the Central Bureau of
Investigation. The petition was dismissed. Hence the present appeal.
B
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
\
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, the material on record does not
disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation by the CBI.
The mere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered
because he had discovered some corruption, cannot justify a CBI c
inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the Army authorities
as well as by the G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it was a
,, case of suicide. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence
he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no rightto claim that
it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice. D
[Paras 34and10] [1106-A, B; 1111-G; 1112-A]
CBI and Anr. v. Rajesh Gandhi and Anr., (1997) Cr.L.J 63, relied
on.
1.2. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been E
registered by the police station, his first remedy is to approach the
Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police
officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P .C. If despite approaching the
Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36, his
grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under F
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead ofrushing to the High Court by way
of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P .C. Moreover,
he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section
200 Cr.P.C. [Para 26] [1109-G; 1110-A]
G
2.1. If an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the
-f Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and
also can direct a proper investigation to be made, iri a case where,
according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was
made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor
H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. Section 156(3) r
provides for a .check by the Magistrate on the police performing its
duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C.
[Paras 11and15) [1106-C, D; 1107-E)

Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan and Anr., JT (2006) 1 SC 10;
B Dilawar Singhv.State ofDelhi, JT (2007) 10 SC 585; CB!v.State of
RajasthanandAnr., (2001) 3 SCC 333; R.P. Kapurv. S.P. Singh, AIR
(1961) SC 1117; and State o/Biharv.A.C. Saldanna, AIR(1980) SC
326, relied on.

c 2.2. It is clarified that even if an FIR has been registered and
the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the
investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such
a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
\
and, if the Magistrate is satisfied, he can order a proper investigation
D and take other suitable steps and pass other order orders as he thinks
necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a
Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The words 'as
abovementioned' occurring in s.190 Cr.P.C. obviously refer to
Section 156 (1 ), which contemplates investigation by the officer in
E charge of the Police Station. 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). [Paras 13, 14 and 27) (1107-B, C, D, E; 1110-B, CJ

F Union ofIndia v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr., distinguished. \_

2.3. The power vested in the Magistrate to order further
investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does
not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate
G the case even after submission of his report under Section 173(8).
Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even
after the police submits the final report. [Para 16] (1107-F, G[

State ofBihar v. A.C. Saldanna, AIR (1980) SC 326, relied on.

H
SAKIRIVASUv. STATE 1103

2.4. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority A
to do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which
would ensure the proper doing of that thing. Thus where an Act
confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such
acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its
execution. The reason for the rule (doctrine ofimplied power) is quite B
apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from
legislation. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by
necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to
make such grant effective.
[Paras 18, 19 and 21] [1108-B, C, D, E, F] c

ITO, Cannanore v. MK. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR (1969) SC 430;
Union ofIndia v. Paras Laminates, AIR (1991) SC 696, Reserve Bank
ofIndia v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd;
AIR (1996) SC 646; ChiefExecutive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat
MaritimeBoardv.HajiDaudHajiHarunAbu, [1996] ll SCC23,JK. D
Synthetics Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, AIR (1996) SC 3527,
State of Karnataka v. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society,
2003 (2) SCC 412 and Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR (1986)
SC 984, relied on.
E
Statutory Construction (3rd Edition) by Crawford, referred to.
2.5. Although Section 156(3) is very briefly worded, it is wide
enough to include all such incidental powers in a Magistrate which
are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation. There is an implied
~ power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order F
registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the officer in charge
ofthe concerned police station 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) G
Cr.P .C., they are implied in the above provision.
[Paras 17 and 24] [1108-A, B; 1109-C, D]

3. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a
writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative
H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. r-
[Para 28) [1110-E)
4. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the
CBI but this Court or the High Court has power under Article 136
or Article 226, as the case may be, to order investigation by the CBI.
B That, however, should be done only in some rare and exceptional
case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large number of
cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all of them.
[Para31) [1111-C,D]
c CBI v. State ofRajasthan and Anr., (2001) 3 SCC 333; Secretary,
Minor Irrigation and Rural Engineering Services UP. and Ors. v.
Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr., [2002) 5 SCC 521, relied on.
5. It is not clear whether the report by G.R.P. Mathura was
accepted by the Magistrate or not. If the report has been accepted
D by the Magistrate and no appeaVrevision was filed against the order
of the Magistrate accepting the police report, then that is the end of
the matter. However, if the Magistrate has not yet passed any order
on the police report, he may do so in accordance with law and in the
light of the observations made above.
E (Para 35) [1112-A, B, CJ
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1685 of2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 13.7.2007 of the High
F Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Cr!. M.W.P. No. 9308/2007. '-
Dinesh Kumar Garg for the Appellant,.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order
dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Criminal Misc.
Writ Petition No. 9308 of2007.
H 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
SAKIRIVASUv. STATE[KATJU,J.] 1105

4. The son of the appellant was a Major in the Indian Army. His A
dead body was found on 23.8.2003 at Mathura Railway Station. The
G.R.P, Mathura investigated the matter and gave a detailed report on
29.8.2003 stating that the death was due to an accident or suicide.
5. The Army officials at Mathura also held two Courts oflnquiry
and both times submitted the report that the deceased Major S. B
Ravishankar had committed suicide at the railway track at Mathura
junction. The Court oflnquiry relied on the statement of the Sahayak
(domestic servant) Pradeep Kumar who made a statement that "deceased
Major Ravishankar never looked cheerful; he used to sit on a chair in the
verandah gazing at the roof with blank eyes and deeply involved in some c
thoughts and used to remain oblivious of the surroundings". The Court of
Inquiry also relied on the deposition of the main eye-witness, gangman
Roop Singh, who stated that Major Ravishankar was hit by a goods train
that came from Delhi.
--', D
6. The appellant who is the father of Major Ravishankar alleged that
in fact it was a case of murder and not suicide. He alleged that in the
Mathura unit of the Army there was rampant corruption about which
Major Ravishankar came to know and he made oral complaints about it
to his superiors and also to his father. According to the appellant, it was
E
for this reason that his son was murdered.
7. The first Court oflnquiry was held by the Army which gave its
report in September, 2003 stating that it was a case of suicide. The
appellant was not satisfied with the findings of this Court of Inquiry and
-'' hence on 22.4.2004 he made a representation to the then Chief of the F
Army Staff, General N.C. Vij, as a result of which another Court of Inquiry
was held. However, the second Court of Inquiry came to the same
conclusion as that of the first inquiry namely, that it was a case of suicide.
8. Aggrieved, a writ petition was filed in the High Court which was
G
dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
>
9. The petitioner (appellant herein) prayed in the writ petition that
the matter be ordered to be investigated by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (in short 'CBI'). Since his prayer was rejected by the High
Court, hence this appeal by way of special leave. H
1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 10. It has been held by this Court in CBI & Anr. v. Rajesh Gandhi r
and Anr., 1997 Cr.L.J 63 (vide para 8) that no one can insist that an
offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the
view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that
the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim
B that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.
11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a
grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section
154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under
Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even ifthat does not
C yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not
registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held,
it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application
under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can
D direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation
to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper
investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision
monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.
E 12. Thus in Mohd. Yousuf v. Smt. Afaq Jahan & Anr., JT (2006)
l SC l 0, this Court observed:
"The clear position therefore is that any judicial Magistrate, before
taking cognizance of the offence, can order investigation under
Section 156(3) of the Code. If he does so, he is not to examine
F the complainant on oath because he was not taking cognizance of
any offence therein. For the purpose of enabling the police to start
investigation it is open to the Magistrate to direct the police to
register an FIR. There is nothing illegal in doing so. After all
registration of an FIR involves only the process of entering the
G substance of the information relating to the commission of the
cognizable offence in a book kept by the officer in charge of the
police station as indicated in Section 154 of the Code. Even if a
Magistrate does not say in so many words while directing
investigating under Section 156(3) of the Code that an FIR should
H be registered, it is the duty of the officer in charge of the police
-*
SAKIRIVASUv. STATE[KATJU,J.] 1107

' ~
station to register the FIR regarding the cognizable offence A
disclosed by the complaint because that police officer could take
further steps contemplated in Chapter XII of the Code only
thereafter.".

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh v.
B
State ofDelhi, JT (2007) 10 SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further
-\
clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has
made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the
aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and ifthe Magistrate is satisfied
he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass
c
such other orders as he thinks necessary for ensuring a proper
investigation. All these powers a Magistrate enjoys under Section 156(3)
Cr.P.C.
14. Section 156 (3) states: D
- -·{
"Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such
an investigation as abovementioned."
The words 'as abovementioned' obviously refer to Section 156 (1 ), which
contemplates investigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station. E
15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the
police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where
the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating
the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to
the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. F

16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under
Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power
of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after
submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can G
order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final
> report, vide State ofBihar v. A. C. Saldanna, AIR (1980) SC 326 (para
19).
17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include
H
1108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R.

A all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper !-
investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.LR.
and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a
proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police.
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very
B wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for
ensuring a proper investigation.
18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority to
do something it includes such incidental or implied powers which would
ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, when any power is
C expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedly included in the grant,
even without special mention, every power and every control the denial
of which would render the grant itself ineffective. Thus where an Act
confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such
acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.
D
19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite
apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As
Crawford observes in his 'Statutory Construction' (3rd edn. page 267):-
"If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting
E oflegislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislative
intent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission".
20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply
determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is necessarily
F implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.
21. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary
implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant
effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore v. MK. Mohammad Kunhi, AIR
( 1969) SC 430, this Court held that the income tax appellate tribunal has
G implied powers to grant stay, although no such power has been expressly
granted to it by the Income Tax Act.
22. Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of
implied powers are Union of India v. Paras Laminates, AIR (1991)
H SC 696, Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and
SAKIRIVASUv. STATE[KATJU,J.] 1109

Investment Company Ltd., AIR (1996) SC 646 (at p. 656), Chief A
Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board v. Haji
Daud Haji Harun Abu, [1996] 11 SCC 23, JK. Synthetics Ltd. v.
Collector of Central Excise, AIR (1996) SC 3527 and State of
Karnataka v. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society, [2003]
2 SCC 412 (at p. 432) etc. B
23. In Savitri v. Govind Singh Rawat, AIR (1986) SC 984 this
Court held that the power conferred on the Magistrate under Section
125Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to the wife implies the power to grant
interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding, otherwise she
may starve during this period. C
24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of the view
that although Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded, there is an implied
power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration
of a criminal offence and /or to direct the officer in charge of the concerned D
--·~
police station 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) Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are
implied in the above provision. E
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 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court F
should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere
in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly
under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police
officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate
under Section 156(3). G
> 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered
by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent
of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred
to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, ,...
then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead
of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or
B Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative
remedies?
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
C 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 Cr.P.C. 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
D police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3)
before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under
Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
E
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ
petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy
the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.
29. In Union ofIndia v. Prakash P. Hinduja and Anr., [2003] 6
F SCC 195 (vide para 13), it has been observed by this Court that a
Magistrate cannot interfere with the investigation by the police. However,
in our opinion, the ratio of this decision would only apply when a proper
investigation is being done by the police. If the Magistrate on an application
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is satisfied that proper investigation has not
G been done, or is not being done by the officer-in-charge of the concerned
police station, he can certainly direct the officer in charge of the police
station to make a proper investigation and can further monitor the same
(though he should not himself investigate).
30. It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36 Cr.P.C.
H
SAKIRI VASU v. STATE [KATJU,J.] 1111

-1 if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not been made by A
the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, 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 vi de CBI v. State of
Rajasthan and Anr., [2001] 3 SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur v. B
+
S.P. Singh, 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. Saldanna (supra).
31. No doubt the Magistrate cannot order investigation by the CBI c
vide CBI v. State of Rajasthan and Anr., (Supra), but this Court or the
High Court has power under Article 136 or Article 226 to order
investigation by the CBI. That, however should be done only in some rare
and exceptional case, otherwise, the CBI would be flooded with a large
number of cases and would find it impossible to properly investigate all D
. ' of them.
32. In the present case, there was an investigation by the G.R.P.,
Mathura and also two Courts oflnquiry held by the Army authorities and
they found that it was a case of suicide. Hence, in our opinion, the High E
Court was justified in rejecting the prayer for a CBI inquiry.
33. In Secretary, Minor Irrigation & Rural Engineering Services
UP. and Ors. v. Sahngoo Ram Arya and Anr., [2002] 5 SCC 521 (vide
para 6) , this Court observed that although the High Court has power to
order a CBI inquiry, that power should only be exercised ifthe High Court F
after considering the material on record comes to a conclusion that such
material discloses prima facie a case calling for investigation by the CBI
or by any other similar agency. A CBI inquiry cannot be ordered as a
matter of routine or merely because the party makes some allegation.
G
34. In the present case, we are of the opinion that the material on
) record does not disclose a prima facie case calling for an investigation
by the CBI. The mere allegation of the appellant that his son was murdered
because he had discovered some corruption cannot, in our opinion, justify
a CBI inquiry, particularly when inquiries were held by the Army
H
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A authorities as well as by the G.R.P. at Mathura, which revealed that it
was a case of suicide.
35. It has been stated in the impugned order of the High Court that
the G.R.P. at Mathura had investigated the matter and gave a detailed
B report on 29.8.2003. It is not clear whether this report was accepted by
the Magistrate or not. If the report has been accepted by the Magistrate
and no appeal/,revision was filed against the order of the learned Magistrate
accepting the police report, then that is the end of the matter. However,
ifthe Magistrate has not yet passed any order on the police report, he
may do so in accordance with law and in the light of the observations
C made above.
36. With the above observations, this appeal stands dismissed.
37. Let a copy of this judgment be sent by the Secretary General
of this Court to the Registrar Generals/Registrars of all the High Courts,
D who shall circulate a copy of this Judgment to all the Hon'ble Judges of
the High Courts.
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.