THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J
Md. Laskar Ali S/o- Late Mayaj Uddin - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam And 2 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 407 / 2025
Decided On : 29-01-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 154(3) and Section 156(3) - Writ petition for registration of FIR - Petitioner's grandson found dead under suspicious circumstances - FIR not registered by police - Court reiterates that aggrieved persons must approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) for proper investigation - High Court should not entertain writ petitions for non-registration of FIRs when alternative remedies exist. (Paras 5 , 24 , 26 )
(B) Judicial Oversight - Magistrate's powers - The Magistrate has the authority to order registration of FIRs and ensure proper investigations, including monitoring the investigation process. (Paras 8 , 12 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner's grandson, aged 14, was found dead on railway lines after working in a scrapyard. The petitioner lodged an FIR which was not registered, prompting the writ petition. (Paras 3 , 4 )
Findings of Court:
The court finds that the petitioner has alternative remedies available under the BNSS and CrPC for addressing the non-registration of the FIR. (Paras 12 )
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court should entertain the writ petition for non-registration of the FIR when alternative remedies exist. (Paras 26 )
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the appropriate remedy for non-registration of an FIR is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, emphasizing the importance of following procedural remedies before seeking judicial intervention. (Paras 24 , 26 )
Result: Writ petition not entertained; petitioner directed to approach the Magistrate.
ORDER :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Heard Ms. S.Z. Hayat, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. M. Barman, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for all the respondents.
2. The relevant and necessary events leading to the institution of the writ petition, as projected, can be stated, in brief, at first.
3. The petitioner had a grandson named Masud Ali, who was aged about 14 years at the relevant time. The petitioner has stated that his grandson, Masud Ali was engaged in the capacity of a carrier in the scrapyard of one Amirsan Ali. The scrapyard is run by Amirsan Ali and his family member at Kendukona. When his grandson, Masud Ali was working as a carrier of scrap materials in the scrapyard of Amirsan Ali on 01.10.2024, the petitioner was informed by one of his grandson’s co-worker on 01.10.2024 over telephone that the deadbody of the petitioner’s minor grandson, Masud Ali was found on the railway lines near Kendukona. After recovery of the body, post-mortem examination was conducted under the instruction of the authorities in the G.R.P, Rangia. As per the Post-Mortem Examination [PME] Report, the deceased sustained a number of injuries on his person. The Autopsy doctor had opined that the death was instantaneous as a result of crush injury sustained over the head, as described in the Report. The Autopsy doctor had further opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem and were caused by blunt force impact. The post-mortem examination was done in the Department of Forensic Medicine & Toxicology, Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 02.10.2024.
4. The petitioner has stated that smelling foul-play in the death of the petitioner’s grandson, he initially lodged a First Information Report [FIR] on 08.10.2024 before the Officer In-Charge, Kamalpur Police Station with a request to conduct a thorough investigation into the incident which led to the suspicious and unnatural death of his grandson. The petitioner has stated that as the Officer In-Charge, Kamalpur Police Station did not register the FIR, he had approached the Superintendant of Police, Kamrup [Rural] on 11.11.2024 requesting him to conduct an investigation into the unnatural death of his grandson by registering the FIR. As the FIR lodged by the petitioner before the said two authorities has not been registered till date, the petitioner has approached this Court by the instant writ petition.
5. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the following observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in [2008] 2 SCC 409 :-
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others
The appropriate remedy for non-registration of an FIR is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC, rather than filing a writ petition.
The duty of the Investigating Officer to find the truth, the powers of the Magistrate to ensure proper investigation, and the importance of fair and just investigation under Article 21 of the Constit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the emphasis on the alternative efficacious remedy of approaching the Magistrate under the Cr.P.C. for seeking registration of an FIR and ensuring ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for seeking directions for a fair investigation in a criminal case.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.