This court disposed of the writ petition seeking fair investigation. Relying on settled precedents, the court held that the remedy lies with the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., not the High Court, and dismissed the petition accordingly.
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. - 9276 of 2020
Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Mishra And 4 Others Respondent :- Union Of India And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,G.A.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, 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 28.9.2018 registered as Case Crime No.0644 of 2018 under Sections 406, 420, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Hariparvat, District Agra.
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.
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).
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 :- 14.12.2020 A.N. Mishra
Digitally signed by Justice Pankaj Digitally signed by Justice Vivek Naqvi Agarwal Date: 2020.12.18 13:04:09 IST Date: 2020.12.18 13:06:47 IST Reason: Document Owner Reason: Document Owner Location: High Court of Judicature at Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 for seeking fair investigation despite settled law directing approach to the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Whether the remedy for unsatisfactory investigation lies with the High Court or the Magistrate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and othersReferred¶8
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
Abhishek Kumar Mishra And 4 Others
Union Of India And 7 Others
Pankaj Naqvi
Vivek Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
