In a criminal miscellaneous writ petition, the High Court disposed of the petition primarily by observing that the concerned Magistrate must decide applications under Section 156(3) CrPC speedily, citing precedent, and directing the investigation to be completed within two months.
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:157458-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12140 of 2023
Petitioner :- Ramwati Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Heard Sri Sanjay Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner who is the informant in this case has prayed from this Court for the following relief:-
"(a) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to ensure the fair and impartial investigation in pursuance to the First Information Report dated 10.07.2023, registered as Case Crime No. 373 of 2023, under Sections 366 I.P.C., P.S. Kanth, District Shahjahanpur.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to recover the victim of the aforesaid case forthwith.
(c) Issue any other writ, order or direction in the nature of which this Hon'ble Court may be deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
Submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is not progressing at proper stage and the S.H.O., P.S. Kanth, Shahjahanpur is not progressing with the investigation.
It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the case has already been filed before the S.P., Shahjahanpur on 21.07.2023 till date no action has been taken and investigation is not progressing in the proper way. Initially the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. have opined Paragraph- 17 quoted as under:-
"17. In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all
such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation."
Thus, it is clear that the concerned Magistrate shall decide any application u/s 156(3) speedy and proper investigation of the case within time bound and in the light of the aforesaid judgement of the case.
This exercise has to be completed within next two months from today.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 4.8.2023 Israr
Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether this Court should direct the police to ensure proper investigation and recover the victim under Article 226.
Whether the Magistrate must decide an application under Section 156(3) CrPC speedily.
Whether the writ petition should be disposed of with an observation for investigation within two months.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Rambat
State Of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
