Allahabad High Court
Panneram vs State Of U.P. And 8 Others on 18 August, 2021
Bench: Pankaj Naqvi, Naveen Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6016 of 2021 Petitioner :- Panneram Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Hon'ble Naveen Srivastava,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.S. Rajbhar, the learned A.G.A.
This writ petition has been filed for seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent concerned to conduct fair investigation in pursuance of FIR dated 27.4.2021 registered as Case Crime No. 91 of 2021, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 304, 323, 504, 506, 269, 270, 291 I.P.C. and 3 of Pandemic Act and 51(b) of Disaster Management Act, Police Station-Dhebarua, District- Sant Kabir Nagar.
It is submitted that petitioner is an informant in the above case and despite more than three months have elapsed from the date of lodging of the FIR, an application to the S.P. concerned on 26.05.2021 for fair investigation, no action whatsoever has been taken, an appropriate direction be issued for fair and expeditious investigation.
It is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 as reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 that in the event of unsatisfactory investigation, remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Tambe (supra) are quoted hereunder:
"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 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."
Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of his grievance.
Subject to aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 18.8.2021 Sachin