Disposed¶23

Laxman Prasad Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 May 2026W.P.(Cr.)/236/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair investigation; direction to police; alternative remedy; writ petition not maintainable where alternate remedies exist; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409; Sections 36, 154(3), 156(3), 200, 482 CrPC; Jamua P.S. Case No. 106 of 2025; chargesheet against three accused in custody; investigation against remaining accused; Jharkhand High Court; W.P. (Cr.) No. 236 of 2026; disposed of with liberty; Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy (approach under Sections 36/154(3) CrPC, Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate, or complaint under Section 200 CrPC) as indicated in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors., instead of the writ petition. ¶23

Laxman Prasad Das Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:13558 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 236 of 2026

¶3

-------

¶4

Laxman Prasad Das, aged about 40 years, son of Late Kartik Das, resident of village Karodih, P.O. Chuglo, P.S. Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶5

…... …. Petitioner (s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Inspector General, having its office at Police Headquarter, Vivekananda Path, Forest Officer Colony, P.O. & P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Deputy Inspector General, North Chhota Nagpur, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand.

¶10

The Superintendent of Police, Giridih.

¶11

The Officer-in-Charge, Jamua Police Station, Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand.

¶12

The Investigation Officer, Jamua Police Station, Jamua, District Giridih, Jharkhand. .…. …. Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶15

-------For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ravi, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Neil Abhijit Toppo, A.C to G.A.-V

¶16

Order No. 04/ Dated 06.05.2026

¶17

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C to G.A.-V.

¶18

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to conduct a fair and proper investigation in connection with Jamua P.S. Case No.106 of 2025.

¶19

Submission has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the chargesheet has been submitted against three accused persons who are in custody, but so far as rest accused persons are concerned, investigation is not being properly conducted.

¶20

In the context of the prayer made in this writ application, reference is made to the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 , wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶21

“ 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under

¶22

Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.”

¶23

In view of the remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application stands disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to avail of the said remedy.

¶24

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶25

Dated 06/05/2026 BS/-

Laxman Prasad Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Prasad Das v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Kumar Alias Kunal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Wasiullah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkumar Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinay Lodha Vs the State of Jharkhand