The Allahabad High Court disposed of a writ petition petitioning for fair investigation into a case under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC, etc. The Bench declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, observing that the aggrieved party should file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate instead.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:144154-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10670 of 2023
Petitioner :- Jay Nath Chaurasiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.
The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to direct the respondent nos.2 and 3 to investigate the matter fairly Case Crime No.0058 of 2023, under Sections 498-A, 323, 302, 201, 120-B I.P.C. and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Khajani, District Gorakhpur.
Learned A.G.A. submits that in the light of the judgement in the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P. decided by Division Bench of this Court on 27.01.2021, in case the informant or petitioner is aggrieved by not conducting the investigation in fair and proper way, they may file application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before concerned Magistrate, instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the decision in the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey (supra), it is open for the petitioner, if so advised, he/she shall move proper application before the court concerned, which shall be decided in accordance with law.
With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 19.7.2023 Jitendra
Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition invoking inherent jurisdiction is the appropriate remedy when aggrieved by non-conduct of investigation, or if Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. application should be preferred.
Whether to exercise writ jurisdiction or direct the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate for an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P.Referred¶8
Ajay Kumar Pandey vs. State of U.P.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Jay Nath Chaurasiya
State Of U.P.
9 Others
Rahul Chaturvedi
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
