Disposed

Indrapal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC5 Aug 2021CRLP/5928/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition seeking directions for investigation under section 363 IPC. It held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy via section 156(3) Cr.P.C. citing Ajay Kumar Pandey, and disposed of the petition without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of without expressing an opinion on merits, leaving it open to the petitioner to move an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

Indrapal Sonkar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5928 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Indrapal Sonkar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shahzadi Momina Khatoon,Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:

¶7

"(1) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to 4 to make fair and proper investigation of Case Crime No. 0091 of 2021, under section 363 I.P.C., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur and also be directed to respondent No. 2 & 3 for take action in the matter with regard to recover the son of petitioner namely Matesh Kumar Sonkar.

¶8

(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to decide the representation dated 04.06.2021 of the applicant with regard to making fair and proper investigation of Case Crime No. 0091 of 2021, under section 363 I.P.C., Police Station Dhata, District Fatehpur."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the investigating officer is not properly investigating the matter and collusively not taking action against the accused.

¶10

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 ).

¶11

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 disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. In the event such an application is filed by the petitioner, it is expected that the concerned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶12

Order Date :- 5.8.2021 Amit Mishra

Indrapal Sonkar v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Indrapal Sonkar 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

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tej Singh @ Tejveer Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Washim Khan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mohd Ejaj and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amarjeet Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Mohd. Nafees Vs State of U P and 3 Others