An Express Grant Of Statutory Powers Carries With It Bynecessary Implication The Authority To Use All Reasonable Means Tomake Such Grant Effective. Thus In Ito, v. M.k.mohammad Kunhi, Air 1969 Sc 430, This Court Held That Theincome Tax Appellate Tribunal Has Implied Powers To Grant Stay,Although No Such Power Has Been Expr

Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 13767 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shiv Narayan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anis Kumar Gautam,Dayasagar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. This petition has been filed for praying for fair investigation inCase Crime No. 412 of 2024, under Sections- 419, 420, 467, 468,471, 506 IPC, Police Station- Gambhirpur, District- Azamgarh. 2. The petition is disposed of directing the investigating officer toconclude the investigation within period of 60 days. 3. If it is not concluded within the aforesaid period reasons shall beindicated in the case diary. It shall be open for the petitioner toapproach the trial court for appropriate relief as per the judgmentof the Apex Court in the case of Sakiri VasuVs. State of U.P.LAWS(SC)-2007-12-69wherein it has been held in paragraphs 13,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27 and 30 as follows:- "13. ............................... We would further clarify that even if anFIR has been registered and even if the police has made theinvestigation, or is actually making the investigation, which theaggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approachthe Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrateis satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take othersuitable steps and pass such order orders as he thinks necessaryfor ensuring a proper investigation. All these powers a Magistrateenjoys under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 14. Section 156 (3)states: Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190may order such aninvestigation as abovementioned. The words `as abovementioned obviously refer to Section 156 (1), which contemplatesinvestigation by the officer in charge of the Police Station. 15. Section 156(3)provides for a check by the Magistrate on thepolice performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In caseswhere the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty ofinvestigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, hecan issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly,and can monitor the same. 16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigationunder Section 156(3)is an independent power, and does not affectthe power of the investigating officer to further investigate thecase even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8).Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigationeven after the police submits the final report, vide State of Biharvs. A.C. Saldanna AIR 1980 SC 326 (para 19). 17. In our opinion Section 156(3)Cr.P.C. is wide enough toinclude all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary forensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to orderregistration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation ifthe Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not beendone, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3)Cr.P.C.,though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it willinclude all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring aproper investigation. 18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority todo something it includes such incidental or implied powers whichwould ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, whenany power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedlyincluded in the grant, even without special mention, every powerand every control the denial of which would render the grant itselfineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly alsogrants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means asare essentially necessary to its execution. 19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quiteapparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted fromlegislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction(3rd edn. page 267):- 18. It is well-settled that when a power is given to an authority todo something it includes such incidental or implied powers whichwould ensure the proper doing of that thing. In other words, whenany power is expressly granted by the statute, there is impliedlyincluded in the grant, even without special mention, every powerand every control the denial of which would render the grant itselfineffective. Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly alsogrants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means asare essentially necessary to its execution. 19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quiteapparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted fromlegislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction(3rd edn. page 267):- If these details could not be inserted by implication, the drafting oflegislation would be an indeterminable process and the legislativeintent would likely be defeated by a most insignificant omission. 20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simplydetermines the legislative will and makes it effective. What isnecessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it werespecifically written therein. 21. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it bynecessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means tomake such grant effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore vs. M.K.Mohammad Kunhi, AIR 1969 SC 430, this Court held that theincome tax appellate tribunal has implied powers to grant stay,although no such power has been expressly granted to it by theIncome Tax Act. 22. Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine ofimplied powers are Union of India vs. Paras Laminates AIR 1991SC 696, Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance andInvestment Company Ltd AIR 1996 SC 646 (at p. 656), ChiefExecutive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board vs.Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu 1996 (11) SCC 23, J.K. Synthetics Ltd.vs. Collector of Central Excise, AIR 1996 SC 3527, State ofKarnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society 2003(2) SCC 412 (at p. 432) etc. 23. In Savitri vs. Govind Singh Rawat AIR 1986 SC 984 this Courtheld that the power conferred on the Magistrate under Section125Cr.P.C. to grant maintenance to the wife implies the power togrant interim maintenance during the pendency of the proceeding,otherwise she may starve during this period. 24. In view of the abovementioned legal position, we are of theview that although Section 156(3) is verybriefly worded, there isan implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C.to order registration of a criminal offence and /or to direct theofficer in charge of the concerned police station to hold a properinvestigation and take all such necessary steps that may benecessary for ensuring a proper investigation includingmonitoring the same. Even though these powers have not beenexpressly mentioned in Section 156(3)Cr.P.C., we are of the opinion that they are implied in the above provision. 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often findthat when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not beenregistered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is notbeing done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writpetition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of theopinion that the High Court should not encourage this practiceand should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, andrelegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly underSection 154(3)and Section 36Cr.P.C. before the concerned policeofficers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concernedMagistrate under Section 156(3). opinion that they are implied in the above provision. 25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often findthat when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not beenregistered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is notbeing done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writpetition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of theopinion that the High Court should not encourage this practiceand should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, andrelegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly underSection 154(3)and Section 36Cr.P.C. before the concerned policeofficers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concernedMagistrate under Section 156(3). 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has verywide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure aproper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor theinvestigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly(though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court shoulddiscourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition underSection 482Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance thathis FIR has not been registered by the police, or after beingregistered, proper investigation has not been done by the 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 acriminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing awrit petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 30. It may be further mentioned that in view of Section 36Cr.P.C.if a person is aggrieved that a proper investigation has not beenmade by the officer-in-charge of the concerned police station, suchaggrieved person can approach the Superintendent of Police orother police officer superior in rank to the officer-in-charge of thepolice station and such superior officer can, if he so wishes, do theinvestigation vide CBI vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2001 (3)SCC 333 (vide para 11), R.P. Kapur vs. S.P. Singh AIR 1961 SC1117 etc. Also, the State Government is competent to direct theInspector General, Vigilance to take over the investigation of acognizable offence registered at a police station vide State ofBihar vs. A.C. Saldanna(supra)." 4. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioners.They may avail the remedy available to him as directed by theApex Court hereinabove. 5. The writ petition stands disposed of keeping in view the abovedirection of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Order Date :- 5.8.2025Abhishek Sri. (Avnish Saxena,J.) (Siddharth,J.)