The High Court rejected the application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. directing investigation monitoring, stating the applicant must approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC as the proper remedy.
Application dismissed with liberty to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.
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. - 2024:AHC-LKO:31021
Court No. - 27
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 263 of 2024 Applicant :- Annpurna Devi @ Chhotka Opposite Party :- Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gonda And Ors. Counsel for Applicant :- Angrej Nath Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
The instant Application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant with a prayer to to direct the opposite party No.1 to monitor the Misc Case No.247 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.C148 of 2012, under Sections 302, 201/34, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC,. Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda to proceed with the case after taking evidence instead of direction for further investigation by Station House Officer concerned or by the competent investigating officer.
The apex court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277 , following its earlier decision in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, held as follows:
"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied,
registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation."
The power of the Magistrate to monitor investigation in exercise of his power under section 156(3) CrPC has also been recognized in the decision of the apex court in the case of T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal, (2011) 12 SCC 328: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 568 , where, in the light of the law laid down in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra) it has been observed as follows:
"12. It should also be noted that Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.)".
In view of the law noticed above, I dispose off this application with liberty to the applicant to invoke the power of the Magistrate available under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the law laid down by the apex court as noticed above. If any such application is moved, the same shall be decided expeditiously by the Magistrate within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 22.4.2024/Raj
Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is directed to approach the Magistrate instead of the High Court for monitoring investigation.
Whether the applicant has an alternate remedy available under Section 156(3) CrPC.
Whether the High Court entertained the application under Article 226 regarding investigation monitoring.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant DhageReferred¶7
(2016) 6 SCC 277 · Who else cites this
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.Explained¶7
(2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
T.C. Thangaraj v. V. EngammalExplained¶11
(2011) 12 SCC 328: (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 568 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Annpurna Devi @ Chhotka
Shamim Ahmed
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
