Gaya Prasad Yadav vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3048 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 3
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2775 of 2022
 
Petitioner :- Gaya Prasad Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Home Lko.And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Singh,Saurabh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava,J.

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

Heard SriSushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Respondents.

In view of the order proposed to be passed in this case, notice to Respondent 4 and 5 are dispensed with.

This petition has been filed praying inter alia the following reliefs:-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus' directing the Court of Magistrate to consider and allow the application U/s-156 (3) Cr. P. C., moved by the petitioner dated 21-12-2021 in the Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/ J.M, Court Room No.16, Sultanpur (Vide Annexure No.-3 to this writ petition).

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of 'Mandamus directing the Opposite Party No.1, 2 and 3 to register the F.I.R. of petitioner moved before Superintendent of Police, District Sultanpur whereby discloses the commission of cognizable offence in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari Case.

(iii) issue any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper under the circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) allow the petition of petitioner with cost."

It is no more res integra 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 rush to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 the Apex Court has said that the High Courts should desist from entertaining petitions for registration of FIR or for conducting proper investigation in the light of the alternative remedy available under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC. The said ratio has been followed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277.

In view of the above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

It is open to the Petitioner to move an appropriate application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the concerned Magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary.

With the aforesaid observation this writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 16.5.2022

Subodh/-

(Manish Mathur,J.) (Rakesh Srivastava,J.)