Dismissed

Monika Masih v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC13 Oct 2020CRLP/9340/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for fair investigation. Relying on established precedents, the Court directed the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of the High Court.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. regarding the investigation grievance.

Monika Masih Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2020) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9340 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Monika Masih Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri Neeraj Srivastava, 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 09.01.2018 in Case Crime No. 23 of 2018, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468, 471, 419, 120-B, 506 IPC, Police Station- Hari Parwat, DistrictAgra.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that as the petitioner is an informant in the above case and despite repeated representations to the higher authorities, no concrete action has been taken, ends of justice would be served, if the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned for ensuring 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

Learned AGA has no objection, if the writ petition is disposed off with a direction that in the event, if the petitioner approaches the jurisdictional Magistrate concerned in respect of his grievance in the light of the above judgment, same shall be adjusted in accordance with law.

¶15

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

¶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 petitioner 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.

¶18

Order Date :- 13.10.2020 Vikram/-

Monika Masih v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Monika Masih v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vishnu Bhagwan Proprietor Trade Link Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sonu Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Devendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Abbas Ali Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dal Chand Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ravindra Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others