Hon'ble Mrs. Saroj Yadav,J.
Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Arunendra, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 and perused the material on record.
The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Swati Gupta for the following reliefs:
"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding and directing the opposite parties no.2 to 4 conduct the fair and proper investigation of the case crime no.175/2021, U/s 323, 504, 324, 354, 394 I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali District Sitapur and also direct to the opposite party no.2 to 4 to arrest the accused persons of the above noted case crime in the interest of justice.
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no.2 to 4 added section 376 I.P.C. against the accused persons in the above noted case crime on the basis of statement recorded u/s 164 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice.
(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned to transfer the present case for proper investigation to another Investigating Agency, in the interest of justice."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the informant of the case. She lodged the present F.I.R. on 29.03.2021 but till date investigation has not been concluded, hence she has come up before this Court for the relief, referred to hereinabove.
It is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 as reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 that in the event of unsatisfactory investigation, remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others (supra) are quoted hereunder:
"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 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 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."
Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of her grievance.
With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of.
(Saroj Yadav,J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 16.8.2021 Shubhankar