JUDGMENT : (1) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant and Sri Jayant Singh Tomar, learned A.G.A. for the State. (2) The present petition has been filed for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned 5th Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Gonda on application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. and the same has been treated as complaint case and also prayed to direct the opposite party no.3 to lodged the first information report and investigate the matter and recover the daughter of the petitioner, who is missing since 2.11.2019. (3) This Court time to time passed the order for apprising the Court regarding investigation conducted by the police after lodging of the F.I.R. In compliance of the order passed, counter affidavit/supplementary counter affidavit, reply to the rejoinder affidavits have been filed in the present case bringing on record the investigation and the efforts made for searching the daughter of the petitioner which is not traceable yet. (4) From perusal of the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been found that an special team has been constituted for searching the daughter of the petitioner, CDR report were collected to the numbers which were provided by the petitioner/family members or other persons during investigation. For searching the daughter of the petitioner some pamphlets were pasted on Railway Station, Bus Stand in different districts and publication was made in Dainik Jagran News Paper as well. (5) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that daughter of the petitioner was kidnapped and sold by Salman, Sayra and Jaffar, they have not been taken into custody by the police, whereas in the affidavit filed on behalf of state, and stated that the said three persons were investigated and there statements were recorded and the same is on record. (6) Learned A.G.A. has submitted that so far as Prayer No.2 is concerned, wherein firstly it has been prayed that the F.I.R. be lodged and the matter be investigated and the daughter of the petitioner be recovered, who is missing since 02.11.2019, for that investigation is going on and the police/Investigating Officer is duty bound to find out the truth as provided under Para 107 of U.P. Police Regulation. and whatever remedies are available for searching the daughter of the petitioner had been adopted and still the efforts are going on, the same has been placed on record by filing the counter affidavit, and if the applicant/petitioner is aggrieved by the investigation, the remedy under the provisions of Cr.P.C. i.e. Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) is available to approach the Magistrate for redressal of the grievance and the Magistrate is empowered for directing the Investigating Officer for further investigation. (7) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is found that Para 107 of U.P. Police Regulation provides that it is the duty of the Investigating Officer to find out truth and not merely to obtain convictions, he must not prematurely commit himself to any view of the facts for or against any person and though he nned not go out of his way to hunt a evidence for the defence in a case in which he has satisfactory grounds for believing that an accused person is guilt, Para 107 of the U.P. Police Regulation is quoted hereinbelow: "107. An investigating officer is not to regard himself as a mere clerk for the recording of statements. It is his duty to observe and to infer. In every case he must use his own expert observations of the scene of the offence and of the general circumstances to check the evidence of witnesses, and in cases in which the culprits are unknown to determine the direction in which he shall look for them. He must study the methods of local offenders who are known to the police with a view to recognising their handiwork, and he must be on his guard against accepting the suspicions of witness and complainants when they conflict with obvious inferences from facts. He must remember that it is his duty to find out the truth and not merely to obtain convictions. He must not prematurely commit himself to any view of the facts for or against any person and though he need not go out of his way to hunt a evidence for the defence in a case in which he has satisfactory grounds for believing that an accused person is guilty, he must always give accused persons an opportunity of producing defence evidence before him, and must consider such evidence carefully if produced. Burglary investigations should be conducted in accordance with the special orders on the subject." (8) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemand Yashwant Dhage and others, reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 , has held that the Magistrate can monitor the investigation. It is the parties, who may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned, the relevant Paras are quoted hereinbelow: "2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 907 , that if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R. 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 concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the F.I.R. 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 the Investigating Officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasus 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 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 concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. 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 Vasus case (supra), the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasus case (supra), the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The concerned Magistrate is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the S.S.P./S.P. concerned 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 concerned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court." (9) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vinubhai Haribhai Malviya & others Vs. State of Gujarat and another reported in 2019 (17) SCC 1 has held that a fair and just investigation of a criminal case comes in the purview of Article 21 of the Constitution of India therefore, under the provisions of Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. all powers are available to Magistrate to ensure proper investigation in the matter in the sense of fair and just investigation by police by directing further investigation either on the request of complainant or alleged accused. This power can also be exercised suo moto by Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Para 42 and 43 of the judgment are held as under: "42. There is no good reason given by the Court in these decisions as to why a Magistrate's powers to order further investigation would suddenly cease upon process being issued, and an accused appearing before the Magistrate, while concomitantly, the power of the police to further investigate the offence continues right till the stage the trial commences. Such a view would not accord with the earlier judgments of this Court, in particular, Sakiri (supra), Samaj Parivartan Samudaya (supra), Vinay Tyagi (supra), and Hardeep Singh (supra); Hardeep Singh (supra) having clearly held that a criminal trial does not begin after cognizance is taken, but only after charges are framed. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. What is not given any importance at all in the recent judgments of this Court is Article 21 of the Constitution and the fact that the Article demands no less than a fair and just investigation. To say that a fair and just investigation would lead to the conclusion that the police retain the power, subject, of course, to the Magistrate's nod under Section 173(8) to further investigate an offence till charges are framed, but that the supervisory jurisdiction of the Magistrate suddenly ceases mid-way through the pre-trial proceedings, would amount to a travesty of justice, as certain cases may cry out for further investigation so that an innocent person is not wrongly arraigned as an accused or that a prima facie guilty person is not so left out. There is no warrant for such a narrow and restrictive view of the powers of the Magistrate, particularly when such powers are traceable to Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h), and Section 173(8) of the CrPC, as has been noticed hereinabove, and would be available at all stages of the progress of a criminal case before the trial actually commences. It would also be in the interest of justice that this power be exercised suo motu by the Magistrate himself, depending on the facts of each case. Whether further investigation should or should not be ordered is within the discretion of the learned Magistrate who will exercise such discretion on the facts of each case and in accordance with law. (emphasis laid) If, for example, fresh facts come to light which would lead to inculpating or exculpating certain persons, arriving at the truth and doing substantial justice in a criminal case are more important than avoiding further delay being caused in concluding the criminal proceeding, as was held in Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi (supra). Therefore, to the extent that the judgments in Amrutbhai Shambubhai Patel (supra), Athul Rao (supra) and Bikash Ranjan Rout (supra) have held to the contrary, they stand overruled. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled. 43 We now come to certain other judgments that were cited before us. Needless to add, Randhir Singh Rana v. State (Delhi Administration) (1997) 1 SCC 361 and Reeta Nag v. State of West Bengal and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 129 also stand overruled. 43 We now come to certain other judgments that were cited before us. King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18 , was strongly relied upon by Shri Basant for the proposition that unlike superior Courts, Magistrates did not possess any inherent power under the CrPC. Since we have grounded the power of the Magistrate to order further investigation until charges are framed under Section 156(3) read with Section 173(8) of the CrPC, no question as to a Magistrate exercising any inherent power under the CrPC would arise in this case." (10) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anothers, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 , has held that the aggrieved person can approach the 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., the relevant Paras are quoted hereinbelow: "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 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). 26. 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 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 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 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 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." (11) Considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and going through the record and the provisions of Section 156(3) read with Section 156(1), Section 2(h) and Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. read with Para 107 of U.P. Police Regulation and Law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra), Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya & Ors. (supra), and Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anothers (Supra), as far as the first prayer for quashing of the impugned order dated 07.02.2020 passed by the learned Vth Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Gonda rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is concerned, nothing is left to be adjudicated as the F.I.R. has already been lodged. (12) As far as the prayer No.2 is concerned, for directing the Opposite Party No.3 to lodge the First Information report and investigate the matter and recover the daughter of the petitioner, who is missing since 2.11.2010, the investigation is going on and the efforts are being made by the police for searching the daughter of the petitioner and in this regard time to time counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit, reply to the rejoinder affidavit (about five affidavit filed on behalf of State) have been filed bringing on record the status of the investigation, which is going on and the efforts which have been made for tracing out the daughter of the petitioner and if the petitioner is aggrieved and apprehending that police is not fairly conducting the investigation, in that event remedy is available with the petitioner as per provisions of the Cr.P.C. and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as discussed hereinabove, to approach to the Magistrate by moving an application before him for ventilation of his grievance. In case any application is moved within one month from today before court below, the same shall be decided expeditiously, if possible, within two months by passing a reasoned and speaking order and also with a direction to the police concerned that they shall not stop the effort in searching the missing daughter of the petitioner. (13) With the observation made hereinabove, the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed off.