Dismissed¶25

Smt Bali Baaj v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2025CRLP/1422/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maintainability of second/repeat writ petition for same relief; direction for free and fair investigation; FIR dated 30.07.2024, Case Crime No. 430 of 2024, Sections 376, 506 IPC, P.S. Atrauli, District Aligarh; earlier writ petition No. 18085 of 2024 disposed 21.10.2024; final report submitted 11.09.2024 not disclosed earlier; Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7954 of 2024 dismissed 03.01.2025; Contempt of Courts Act 1971; effective/statutory alternative remedy; Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. remedy before Magistrate; petition dismissed; Allahabad High Court DB, Vivek Kumar Birla & Nand Prabha Shukla, JJ., 23.1.2025, 2025:AHC:11984-DB.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition seeking direction for free and fair investigation was dismissed as not maintainable. ¶25

Smt Bali Baaj Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Contempt of Court | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition seeking direction for free and fair investigation was dismissed as not maintainable.

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the present (second) writ petition, seeking direction to ensure free and fair investigation of Case Crime No. 430 of 2024 — the same relief sought and disposed of in the earlier writ petition — is maintainable. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

In case the petitioner is aggrieved by filing of the final report, she has an effective statutory remedy.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

For the same relief, the second petition is not maintainable; even otherwise, the petitioner has an effective remedy.

¶22

Key takeaways

In case the investigation is still pending, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the effective remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate.ratio¶23
No good ground exists to entertain the petition; the present petition is not maintainable and stands dismissed.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla and Nand Prabha Shukla, JJ.; order dated 23.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:11984-DB) — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1422 of 2025 sought ad-interim mandamus directing respondents to ensure free and fair investigation of FIR dated 30.07.2024, Case Crime No. 430 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh. An earlier identical petition (No. 18085 of 2024) was disposed of on 21.10.2024 with a direction to conclude the investigation fairly and expeditiously under the Superintendent of Police within six weeks; a subsequent Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7954 of 2024 was dismissed on 03.01.2025 for want of disobedience. Learned A.G.A. pointed out the final report had been submitted on 11.09.2024, before the earlier order, whose forwarding counsel admitted was not disclosed earlier. Holding: a second petition for the same relief is not maintainable and the petitioner has an effective remedy — a statutory remedy if aggrieved by the final report, and liberty to proceed under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate if the investigation is still pending. Petition dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:11984-DB

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1422 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt Bali Baaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyan Prakash Mishra,Santosh Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vijendra Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to issue ad-interim mandamus directing the respondents to ensure the free and fair investigation of the case in pursuance of first information report dated 30.07.2024 registered as Crime No. 430 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station-Atrauli, DistrictAligarh.

¶8

The petitioner has admittedly approached this Court by filing writ petition praying for similar relief which was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2024 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 18085 of 2024 (Smt. Bali Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) which is quoted as under:

¶9

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶10

2. Present petition has been filed seeking direction to respondents to ensure fair, impartial and proper investigation of the Case Crime No.430 of 2024, under Sections 376, 506 IPC, Police Station Atrauli, District Aligarh.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for issuance of suitable direction for fair and impartial investigation.

¶12

4. Learned A.G.A. submits that the police authorities are under the obligation to do the investigation fairly, impartially and expeditiously and the same would be done in accordance with law.

¶13

5. The present petition is disposed of directing the police authorities to conclude the investigation of the said case fairly, impartially and expeditiously, in the supervision of Superintendent of Police concerned, preferably within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before them.

¶14

6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the Competent Authority/Investigating Officer to act in accordance with law."

¶15

It is further submitted that when the aforesaid order is not complied with the petitioner while Contempt Application (Civil) No. 7954 of 2024 (Smt. Bali Vs. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and 2 Others) which was dismissed vide order dated 03.01.2025 which is quoted as under:

¶16

"From the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application, no disobedience of the order of this Court can be imputed to the opposite parties.

¶17

The applicant may approach the concerned Magistrate or exercise any other remedy available to her in law.

¶18

It is not a case for instituting proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 before this Court.

¶19

The application is dismissed."

¶20

Learned A.G.A. submits that in the present case, the final report had already been submitted on 11.09.2024 i.e. even before the passing of the order dated 21.10.2024 in the earlier petition as quoted above.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly admitted that in the earlier petition forwarding of the final report dated 11.09.2024 has not been disclosed as apparently the petitioner was not aware of the forwarding of such final report.

¶22

We, therefore, find that for the same relief the second petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the petitioner has effective remedy.

¶23

Needless to say that in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by filing of the final report, he has effective statutory remedy and, in case, the investigation is still pending although it is not reflected from the instructions placed on record by learned A.G.A., the petitioner is at liberty to avail the effective remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned Magistrate.

¶24

We, therefore, do not find any good ground to entertain the petition, hence, the present petition is not maintainable.

¶25

The instant petition stands accordingly, dismissed .

¶26

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Shivani

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SHIVANI SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Bali Baaj v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Bali Baaj v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases