Allahabad High Court
Smt. Renu Alias Renu Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 27 July, 2023
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra, Narendra Kumar Johari
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:49480-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5779 of 2023
Petitioner :- Smt. Renu Alias Renu Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lucknow And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.K. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Hon'ble Narendra Kumar Johari,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA who appears on behalf of State-respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to make further investigation of the Case Crime No. 30/2023 registered against opposite party nos. 4 to 7 at P.S. Hargaon, District Sitapur.
3. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the wife of Mailoo @ Dileep and father-in-law of petitioner no. 1 namely Jagannath died as a result of injuries caused on his person by the accused-respondent nos. 4 to 7. The First Information Report was lodged thereafter but the police is not conducting the fair investigation. Despite the death of the Jagannath, the appropriate sections have not been added by the investigating officer.
4. Learned AGA has raised a preliminary objection regarding the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition as such direction cannot be granted by this Court in these proceedings.
5. We have perused the averments made in the writ petition and are not convinced that any direction, as has been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, can be granted in these proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 relying upon an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in (2008) 2 SCC 469 has held that this Court normally should not entertain such petitions for the reason that complainant in such situations is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
6. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is hereby disposed of with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If any such application is moved by the petitioner/complainant, the same shall be dealt in accordance with law by the Magistrate concerned.
Order Date :- 27.7.2023
AKK
