Disposed

Mitthu Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2020CRLP/3230/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking action against accused persons in a crime case. The Court held that since a charge sheet was already submitted, the petitioner must approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for grievances regarding investigation rather than invoking the Court's jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without granting any relief, directing the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate.

Mitthu Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 44

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3230 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Mitthu Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Pal,Mohammad Fateh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Pachori,J.

¶5

Shri Deepak Mishra, learned A.G.A. has filed Affidavit of Compliance on behalf of Sub Inspector of Police, P.S. Shahganj, District Jaunpur today, which is taken on record. In the said affidavit it is stated that the charge sheet has been submitted against the accused on 16.1.2020. This affidavit is dated 4.3.2020.

¶6

Heard Sri Bhanu Pratap Pal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Deepak Mishra, learned AGA.

¶7

This writ petition has been filed for seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to take appropriate action against accused persons in Case Crime No. 300 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 504, IPC and Section 6 & 7, POCSO Act, 2012, PS Shahganj, District Jaunpur.

¶8

We do not find any justification to keep this matter pending and to adjourn it only on the ground that the victim has not been recovered till date as it is always open to the petitioner to ventilate his grievances before the magistrate concerned before whom the charge sheet has been submitted.

¶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

¶12

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.

¶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

Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶16

The party shall file a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioners alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (s) (preferably Aadhar Card).

¶17

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing. Order Date :- 29.9.2020 T. Sinha

Mitthu Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mitthu Lal v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Vikas Gupta and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shashank Balasaheb Bhapkar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bismillah and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Murti and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Yashpal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ram Rihes and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another