Order On Board

Proceeding through Video Conferencing

19/01/2022

1. The petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to conduct proper investigation and prepare a fresh final report and subsequent trial be done accordingly.

2. The facts projected by the petitioner are that the daughter of the petitioner married to respondent No.4 on 01.01.2009 and she is being harassed by her husband for many years. On 16.06.2021, the respondent No.4 with an intent to cause an accident hit a goat, as a result of which the daughter of the petitioner sitting in backseat got injured grievously and during treatment she died in the hospital. The report was lodged of accident under Section 304 of IPC and investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. Thereafter the final report was prepared, but the said report is not accurate, as the charges framed are under Section 304 of IPC, instead it should have been under Section 302 of IPC. The petitioner preferred various representations for proper investigation relating to the death and murder of her daughter, but till date no action has been taken.

3. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others 1 has examined the issue and has held in paragraphs 27 & 28 as under:-

"27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154 (3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section Cr.P.C. “28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere."

4. The judgment passed by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu (Supra) has again come up for consideration before Three

1 (2008) 2 SCC 409

Judges Bench in case of M. Subramaniam & another Vs. S. Janaki & another 2. The Supreme Court after considering the same judgment has held at para 7 & 9 which are as under:-

"7. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, in which it is observed: (SCC p. 278, paras 2-4) "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.

9. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ pe