Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the validity of an FIR. Holding that aggrieved informants must approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. rather than invoking writ jurisdiction, the petition was dismissed without further order based on a Division Bench judgment.
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:194212-DB
Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15767 of 2023
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Bhartiya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 12 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Dubey,Saumitra Dwivedi,Sharad Tripathi 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. for the State and perused the record.
This is writ petition on behalf of informant Manoj Kumar Bhartiya.
By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 01.05.2023 registered as Case Crime No.88 of 2023, under Section 365 I.P.C., Police Station Kaundhiyara Yamunanagar, District Prayagraj Commissionerate.
Submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police is not taking action against the named accused persons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) decided on 27.01.2021 wherein paragraph 17 of the said judgment, the Court has held as under:-
"17. In view of the discussions made above, we hold that if an informant/ petitioner is aggrieved that proper/ fair investigation is not being done by the investigating ofÏcer, then he/ she may approach the concerned Magistrate by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for appropriate orders instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
If such an application is moved before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad the same shall be decided by a reasoned order directing the Investigating OfÏcer of the case to gear up the unbiased investigation and conclude the same preferably within a period of 60 days and submit its report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C. in the court of concerned Magistrate.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed off.
Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Rmk.
Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is maintainable when aggrieved informant claims non-action by police.
Whether the petitioner should approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for directives on investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 othersRelied on¶9
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 15692 of 2020 (Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others)
Manoj Kumar Bhartiya
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
