Dismissed

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

Allahabad HC11 Sept 2019CRLP/21129/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court dismissed a writ petition seeking fair investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution, relying on Sakiri Vasu and Tambe, directing the petitioner to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as the correct alternate remedy.

What did the court decide?

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

Dharmendra and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21129 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Dharmendra And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA.

¶6

Sri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the contents in the prayer clause, i.e,. the investigation be conducted from the C.B.C.I.D. be omitted, which is not objected by Sri A.K. Sand, the learned A.G.A.

¶7

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 27.6.2019 in Case Crime No.62/2019, under Sections 147/148/323/379/452/506 IPC, P.S. Vijaygarh, Aligarh.

¶8

It is submitted that petitioner is an accused 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.

¶9

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.

¶10

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

¶11

"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) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC 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

¶12

case because what we have found in this country that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

¶13

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 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) CrPC 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."

¶14

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

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶16

Order Date :- 11.9.2019 Chandra

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Bihari Vs State of U.P.

Pankaj Alias Bobby Vs State of U.P.

Deo Nath Yadav and Others Vs State of U.P.

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

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

Munna Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others