Allahabad High Court
Ram Shila Gupta vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 8 January, 2021
Bench: Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Court No. - 48 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16288 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ram Shila Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.S.Rajbhar, learned AGA for the State.
This writ petition has been filed with the following relief;
"1. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents no.2 to transfer the investigation of Crime No.497 of 2019, under Sections 307, 147, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur to any another agency and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
The petitioner is the mother of the accused Pavan Kumar Gupta, she has filed the present writ petition for the relief as afore-quoted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the investigation in the aforesaid crime case No.497 of 2019, the Investigating Officer has recorded the statement of one Smt. Meera Devi wife of Kailash Yadav, but as per certificate of Village Pradhan, Meera Devi had died earlier. He, therefore, submits that the investigation needs to be transferred as prayed.
We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
We are of the view that the relief as prayed cannot be granted to the petitioner inasmuch as the petitioner has a remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for proper investigation.
In the case of M. Subramaniam and another Vs. Janki and another (Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011) decided on 20.03.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if FIR has already been registered then the Magistrate can direct proper investigation to be done which includes his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigation officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. The High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation and 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. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C 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 recommend to the Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are also in reiteration of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUDHIR BHASKARRAO TAMBE VS. HEMANT YASHWANT DHAGE AND OTHERS; 2016(6) SCC 277 and in the case of SAKIRI VASU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, 2008(2) SCC 409.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good reason to entertain the writ petition.
Consequently, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law.
Order Date :- 8.1.2021 SFH