Dismissed

Suman Balmiki v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2019CRLP/20899/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a writ petition seeking mandamus for fair investigation is not maintainable. Citing Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, the court directed the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as not maintainable; petitioner directed to approach Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Suman Balmiki Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20899 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Suman Balmiki Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Sand learned AGA.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed for seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent concerned to conduct fair investigation in pursuance of FIR dated 8.6.2019 in Case Crime No.172/2019, under Sections 376, 313, 504, 506 IPC and 4/6 The Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act. 1986, P.S. Babina, District Jhansi.

¶7

It is submitted that petitioner is an informant in the above case and despite an application to the authorities concerned for fair investigation, no action whatsoever has been taken, an appropriate direction be issued for fair and expeditious investigation.

¶8

It is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 as reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 that in the event of unsatisfactory investigation, remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶9

Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Tambe (supra) are quoted hereunder:

¶10

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. , that if a person has a grievance that his FIR 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 Magistrate concerned 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 FIR 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 Vasu case because what we have found in this country that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions

¶11

praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

¶12

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 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 Magistrate concerned 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."

¶13

Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of his grievance.

¶14

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶15

Order Date :- 12.9.2019

¶16

Suman Balmiki v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suman Balmiki v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharmendra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rakshpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Gayyur and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nirmal Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vijay Dey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hema Kumari and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others