Dismissed

Sushil Kumar Narang v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC2 Jan 2020CRLP/26203/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a petition filed for a writ of mandamus seeking directions for fair investigation. It held that the remedy for non-investigation is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., not the High Court under Article 226, citing Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is disposed off with the direction to approach the competent Magistrate.

Sushil Kumar Narang Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26203 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Narang Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anurag Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

¶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 2.11.2018 registered as Case Crime No.714 of 2019 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. PS. Kotwali, District Shahjahanpur.

¶7

It is submitted that petitioner is an informant in the above case and despite approaching the authority 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) 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

¶11

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.

¶12

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."

¶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

Subject to aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off.

¶15

Order Date :- 2.1.2020

¶16

Sushil Kumar Narang v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Narang v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Sneh Lata and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajat Bhateja and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendra Chauhan Vs State

Naseer Khan Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Chandrakala and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others