The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for fair investigation and arrest under specific IPC sections. The court, noting a prior ruling clarifying the primacy of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications, held that no reason existed to entertain the writ.
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. - 48
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1279 of 2021
Petitioner :- Kumar Narayan Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabha Shanker Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 6.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the Staterespondents and Sri Nagendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 6.
This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus for directing the respondent to conduct fair and proper investigation in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 23.10.2020 bearing Case Crime No.343 of 2020 under Section 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Mutthiganj District Prayagraj.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to arrest the respondent no.4 in pursuance of F.I.R. dated 23.10.2020 bearing Case Crime No.343 of 2020 under Section 504, 506, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C. Police Station Mutthiganj District Prayagraj"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigating officer is not properly investigating the matter and collusively not taking action against the accused.
Be that as it may, the petitioner has a remedy under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. This legal position has also been clarified by this court vide judgment dated 27.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others) .
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good reason to entertain this writ petition. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case of the petitioner, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, it is expected that the concerned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 SP
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to entertain a writ petition for directing investigation and arrest when alternative statutory remedies exist under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶11
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kumar Narayan
State Of U P
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
