The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for fair investigation regarding an IPC murder case, holding that the mandatory remedy lies in approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rather than invoking Article 226.
Note: The court did not grant the requested relief as the writ petition was dismissed.
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. - 9274 of 2020
Petitioner :- Abhishek Yadav (Minor) Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 10 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravi Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Short counter affidavit is taken on record.
Heard Sri Ravi Chandra Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and 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 7.6.2020, registered as Case Crime No.0080/2020, under Sections 302/201 IPC, P.S. Mehnagar, Azamgarh.
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.
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.
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 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."
Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of his grievance.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed off.
Order Date :- 12.10.2020 Chandra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition for directing fair investigation is maintainable when the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition for proper investigation instead of directing the aggrieved person to approach the Magistrate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Explained¶9
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and othersExplained¶9
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Abhishek Yadav
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Naqvi
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
