Dismissed

Bansh Raj Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2020CRLP/6557/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the writ petition seeking direction for fair investigation. Relying on Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, the Court held that the remedy lies with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., not the High Court. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition seeking direction for fair investigation was dismissed.

Bansh Raj Rajbhar 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. - 6557 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Bansh Raj Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kant Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Krishna Kant Yadav, 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 7.4.2014 in Case Crime No. 50 of 2014 under Section 363, 366, 504, 506 IPC, police station Tarawa, 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 registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper

¶11

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 :- 7.10.2020 S.K.S.

Bansh Raj Rajbhar v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bansh Raj Rajbhar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dayashanker and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Salman Husain Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ashish Kumar Gupta and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manurojan Yadav Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sunil Shreni Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others