Dismissed

Zahid Abbas v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2020CRLP/3575/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for fair investigation. The court held that the aggrieved informant must approach the competent Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of filing a writ petition. The petition was disposed off on this principle.

What did the court decide?

Disposed of; no relief granted as the correct remedy is Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Zahid Abbas Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3575 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Zahid Abbas Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vipul Kumar Dubey,Manoj Kumar Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Vipul Kumar Dubey, 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 F.I.R. dated 24.11.2019, Case Crime No.0144 of 2019, under Sections 363, 366, 344, 376, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Pawai, District-Azamgarh.

¶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 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

With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed off.

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

Order Date :- 10.11.2020 SK Goswami

Zahid Abbas v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zahid Abbas 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

Shole Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Durga Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Khemraj Singh @ Tillu Chauhan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Madhusudan and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Alka Chaudhary and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sridhar (Uma Shankar Dubey) and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others