Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.
Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners; Ms. Farhat Jamal Siddiqui, learned AGA for the respondents 1, 2 and 3.
The instant petition seeks a direction upon the State-respondent nos. to and 3 to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No. 494 of 2020 under sections 279, and 304-A I.P.C., police station Kotwali Dehat, District Hardoi from the present Investigating Officer to other Investigating Officer for fair and impartial investigation and further direct respondent no. 4 not to seize and recover the vehicle of the petitioner bearing no. UP 32 FK 5816 from his possession and also not adopt any coercive action against the petitioner and his vehicle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working in the Community Health Centre, Nawabganj, Farrukhabad. He has been falsely implicated in the present case with respect to an incident with which he has no concern as on the date and time of incident he was at Farrukhabad. In fact the incident was caused by the brother an M.L.A. whose name is also Dhirendra Pratap Singh. He submits that no incident as alleged in the F.I.R. was caused by the petitioner but the police is trying to arrest the petitioner and asking him to give his Tata Safari vehicle in the custody of police, hence he filed the present petition before this Court.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, so far as the prayer made in the present petition with regard to transfer of investigation of the present case to another Investigating Officer and for issuing a direction not to seize the vehicle of the petitioner is concerned, we do not find any good ground to entertain the same, hence the same is hereby refused.
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) 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.
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) CrPC 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."
The power of the Magistrate to monitor investigation in exercise of his power under section 156(3) CrPC 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.)"
In view of the law noticed above, we dispose off this petition with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the power of the Magistrate available under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the law laid down by the apex court as noticed above.
The party shall file computer generated copy of order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by it alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person(s) (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number(s) to which the said Aadhar Card is linked, before the concerned Court/Authority/Official.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of the computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
(Rajeev Singh, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 21.1.2021 shiraz