Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:125978-DB

Court No. - 64

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8717 of 2023

Petitioner :- Smt. Ragini Singh

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Kripa Shanker Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. and perused the

impugned F.I.R. as well as material brought on record.

2. The present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondent

authorities to conclude the fair investigation of Case Crime No. 0062 of 2023,

under Sections 363, 506,406 IPC, Police Station Wave City, District

Ghaziabad.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the police is

acting in collusion with the accused persons and as yet neither the accused

persons have been arrested nor any charge sheet has been filed against the

accused persons.

4. Admittedly, petitioner is aggrieved by the manner of investigation said to

have been conducted so far against private respondents.

5. The apex court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant

Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, following its earlier decision in Sakiri

Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, held as follows:

"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) Cr.P.C. 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 be 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) 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 monitor the investigation."

6. The power of the Magistrate to monitor investigation in exercise of his

power under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. has also been recognized in the decision

of the apex court in the case of T.C. Thangaraj v. V. Engammal, (2011) 12

SCC 328 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 568, where, in the light of the law laid down

in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra), it has been observed as follows:

"12. It should also be noted that Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing

their duties and where the Magistrate finds that the police have not done their

duty or not investigated satisfactorily, he can direct the police to carry out the

investigation properly, and can monitor the same. (See Sakiri Vasu v. State of

U.P.)."

7. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.Subramaniam and another v.

S.Janaki and another, 2020 SCC online S.C. 341 affirmed the view taken

by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra) and

held as under:

"17. In our opinion Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such

powers in a Magistra