Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat

Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya v. State of Gujarat (Supreme Court of India, 16 October 2019) (2019) 17 SCC 1 is a criminal-procedure ruling — included here because citizens fighting FIR-inertia reach for it alongside RTI. The Magistrate has a continuing supervisory role over police investigation under §156(3) CrPC, and may order further investigation under §173(8) CrPC even after cognizance.

Magistrate has continuing supervisory role over investigation.

The Magistrate has a continuing supervisory role over police investigation under §156(3) read with §173(8) CrPC, and may order further investigation after the police report is filed and after cognizance is taken, but only up to the framing of charges, at which point the trial begins and the power ends. Useful complement to RTI for FIR-not-registered cases.

Full text: Indian Kanoon

Two routes run in parallel: the Magistrate application (Vinubhai power) to move a stalled investigation, and the RTI to the police PIO for the FIR's status, the investigation diary's existence, and the final-report timeline. RTI supplies the record the magistrate application then uses.

• Citation: (2019) 17 SCC 1
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Date: 2019-10-16
• Outcome: disposed
• Reporter / Cause-list: (2019) 17 SCC 1

This ruling sits in the RTI Wiki Case-law Database as a companion to the RTI route, not as RTI authority: it is a criminal-procedure ruling and belongs in an application to a Magistrate, not in a §19(1) First Appeal or §19(3) Second Appeal. Use RTI to obtain the record, and use this ruling in the criminal court.

1. Day 30 — silence by PIO = deemed refusal under §7(2). File §19(1) First Appeal in 30 days using First Appeal Builder.
2. Day 60-90 — if FAA also refuses, file §19(3) Second Appeal to the State Information Commission (or CIC for central authorities).
3. Beyond 18 months pending — writ petition under Article 226 to the High Court.
4. Parallel CPGRAMS complaint at pgportal.gov.in for service-delivery push.

Use our Citation Formatter to format the citation correctly. Pair with Bhagat Singh v. CIC (2007) (procedural objections) and Adesh Kumar v. UoI (2014) (irrelevance is not a ground) — these two Delhi HC rulings cover most everyday refusal scenarios.

• CPIO Supreme Court v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal (Constitution Bench) — office of CJI is public authority
• Anjali Bhardwaj v. UoI — IC vacancies + transparency
• Girish Deshpande — §8(1)(j) personal information test
• Bhagat Singh v. CIC — procedural compliance
• Adesh Kumar v. UoI — irrelevance is not a ground
• Full case-law database (300+)

• AI RTI Drafter
• First Appeal Builder
• Master directory of landmark RTI rulings
• RTI Act, 2005

• RTI Case-Law Search — full corpus
• PIO/FAA Knowledge Base
• 10 landmark Supreme Court RTI rulings
• High Court RTI rulings
• Landmark CIC decisions
• RTI Act, 2005 — full text

Editorial summary · corrected 27 August 2026: this is a CrPC ruling, not an RTI Act decision, the earlier framing having tied it to a nonexistent RTI section on Magistrate supervision. Citation (2019) 17 SCC 1 and date 16 October 2019 verified. The bench stated here was wrong and was corrected on 11 September 2026 against indiankanoon.org/doc/131202146 to R.F. Nariman, Surya Kant and V. Ramasubramanian JJ.