Disposed

Priyanka Devi v. State of U.P. and 09 Others

Allahabad HC9 Oct 2023CRLP/15821/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench, referring to Ajay Kumar Pandey, observed that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. empowers a magistrate to ensure proper investigation. The Court ordered the exercise to be completed within 16 days and disposed of the writ petition without issuing specific writ directions to the respondents in this order.

What did the court decide?

Directed the exercise mandated by reference to Ajay Kumar Pandey to be completed within 16 days; no specific writ directed to respondents in this order.

Priyanka Devi Vs State of U.P. and 09 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:194360-DB

¶2

Court No. - 67

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15821 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Priyanka Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 09 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pushkar Nath Tripathi,Jai Prakash Prasad

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶6

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed from this Court for the following relief:-

¶9

"A- Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to ensure to conduct the fair and proper investigation of Case Crime No. 250 of 2023, under Sections 323, 147, 504, 506, 366, 354 Kha I.P.C., P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur.

¶10

B- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to include the application dated 26.08.2023 along with affidavit of the petitioner and conclude the investigation as per the affidavit within stipulated time period and also ensure the safety of life limbs of the petitioner."

¶11

Submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner that the investigation is not progressing at proper stage and the S.H.O., P.S. Ghazipur, District Fatehpur is not progressing with the investigation.

¶12

It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that initially the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. have opined Paragraph- 17:-

¶13

"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.”

¶14

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.

¶15

This exercise has to be completed within next 16 days from today.

¶16

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶17

Order Date :- 9.10.2023 Israr/ Tariq

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priyanka Devi v. State of U.P. and 09 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanka Devi v. State of U.P. and 09 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

Iftekhar Rijwi and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Manoj Kumar Pandey and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Tej Singh and 9 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Dheer Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Zaiyad Ali Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Manoj Kumar Bhartiya Vs State of U.P. and 12 Others