Disposed

Gajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC15 Feb 2019CRLP/4357/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus for fair investigation, relying on precedents that mandate approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as the appropriate remedy. Despite dissatisfaction with investigation speed, the petition was disposed of as alternative relief was available and initiated.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed as alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. was available and already approached.

Gajendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 4357 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Gajendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhan Pal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Umesh Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Dhan Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and the 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 22.09.2016 in Case Crime No. 0669 of 2016, under Sections 323, 504, 506, 420, 427 of I.P.C., Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Badaun..

¶7

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.

¶8

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

¶9

"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

¶10

information report or praying for a proper investigation.

¶11

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."

¶12

We are informed that the petitioner in terms of the above judgment has already approached the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 12.03.2019 (Annexure-2 of the petition) on which he after perusing the case diary observed that the Investigating Officer is collecting evidence and he also directed the I.O., to conclude the investigation without further delay.

¶13

It is submitted that till date investigation has not been brought to its logical conclusion inasmuch as till date not even the statement of the first informant has been recorded, as alleged in Paragraph No. 9 of the petition.

¶14

Prime facie, if the averments made in Paragraph No. 9 are true, same are very serious, immediate attention, including a coercive action, if need be, is warranted.

¶15

The petition is disposed of in the light of above observations.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.2.2019 V.S.Singh

Gajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hariom @ Chandra Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sanjay Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Golu @ Haseen Khan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kamran Alias Kammu and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shishank Vashistha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jaswant Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others