The court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking fair investigation. Relying on Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, the court held that the remedy lies with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., leading to the disposal of the petition.
No relief granted; petition disposed of with direction to approach the Magistrate.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25783 of 2019
Petitioner :- Israr Ahmad Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Noor Muhammad,Yogesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Noor Muhammad, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA.
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 31.3.2019 registered as Case Crime No.0069 of 2019 under Section 3/5/8 Cow Slaughter Act and Section 11 Prevention of Animal Cruelty Act PS Khakheru, District Fatehpur.
It is submitted that petitioner is an accused and is also entitled to fair investigation in the above case and despite approaching the authority concerned, no action whatsoever has been taken, an appropriate direction be issued for fair and expeditious investigation.
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.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Tambe ( supra ) are quoted hereunder:
"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 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 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."
Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of his grievance.
With the aforesaid observations, writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 RS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking fair investigation is maintainable when investigation grievances lie with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for directing fair investigation instead of referring the aggrieved party to the Magistrate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
(2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and othersRelied on¶8
(2016) 6 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 4 enactments
Israr Ahmad Khan
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
