Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY
Montosh Paul S/O- Late Bhupesh Ch. Paul – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India In The Ministry Of Home Affairs Through The Secretary North Avenue, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's grievance regarding harassment and allegedly tardy police investigations. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. exhaustion of statutory remedies under bnss/crpc before seeking high court intervention for investigation grievances. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. final disposal of matter concerning police protection based on absence of active threat. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.
Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 6; and Mr. A.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.
2. In this writ petition, one of the grievances raised by the petitioner is that at the time of institution of the writ petition, there had been continuous harassments through different means to the petitioner, and the family of the petitioner, which harassments, according to the petitioner were meted out at the instance of the respondent no. 8, who was then a Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA]. The petitioner has stated that a
High Courts should not entertain writ petitions for grievances regarding non-registration of FIRs or improper police investigations, as the law provides adequate alternative remedies for an aggrieved....
The court emphasized that a petitioner must exhaust alternative remedies under the CrPC and BNSS before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for seeking fair investigation and relief from harassment.
The petitioner should avail the alternative efficacious remedy under the Cr.P.C. before approaching the High Court with a writ petition.
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.
The availability of an alternative efficacious remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for seeking proper investigation and action against accused persons, which precludes the filing of a writ petition u....
The main legal principle established is that when an alternative efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the court should not entertain the petition.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy for aggrieved persons seeking the registration of an FIR is to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and not to file....
The court ruled that aggrieved parties must seek investigation remedies through the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, 2023, rather than filing writ petitions under Article 226.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
