The court dismissed a writ petition seeking mandamus for fair investigation, citing Supreme Court precedent that the aggrieved party must approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of the High Court.
The writ petition was dismissed; the aggrieved person is directed to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
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. - 25615 of 2019
Petitioner :- Panna Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ahmad Ali Siddiqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ahmad Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.B. Maurya, 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 7.11.2019, registered as Case Crime no. 0492 of 2019 under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 3/4 D.P. Act, PS Karchhana, District Prayagraj.
Sri S.B. Maurya, the learned A.G.A, has placed before us the progress report in the ongoing investigation.
We perused the same and are satisfied that the investigation is being proceeded in a fair and independent manner. Nevertheless, if the petitioner (informant) still aggrieved with any facet of investigation, it is always open for him to approach the Magistrate concerned, 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 , in which it is held 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."
Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed . Order Date :- 7.1.2020 N.S.Rathour
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition for fair investigation when the remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is available before the Magistrate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Relied on¶8
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and othersRelied on¶8
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Panna Lal
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
