Dharmveer Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22241 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the A.G.A. representing the respondent Nos. 1 to 6. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing/commanding the respondents to ensure the fair and impartial investigation of Case Crime No. 146 of 2023, under sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 323, 504, 506, 354kha, IPC, registered at Police Station Bhawan Bahadur Nagar (B.B. Nagari, District: Bulandshahr by any other independent agency, in the interest of justice." In Paragraph nos. 15 to 17 of its judgment in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court has observed as follows : - "15. Section 156(3) provides for a check by the Magistrate on the police performing its duties under Chapter XII Cr.P.C. In cases where the Magistrate finds that the police has not done its duty of investigating the case at all, or has not done it satisfactorily, he can issue a direction to the police to do the investigation properly, and can monitor the same.

¶16The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is an independent power, and does not affect the power of the investigating officer to further investigate the case even after submission of his report vide Section 173(8). Hence the Magistrate can order re-opening of the investigation even after the police submits the final report, vide State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha (SCC : AIR para 19).

¶17In our opinion Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an F.I.R. and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Sharma, Sushil Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Dharmveer Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation." The provisions in B.N.S.S., 2023 which corresponds to Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. In case, the petitioner has any grievance against the manner in which the investigation is being conducted, the petitioner has the remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 175(3) of B.N.S.S. / Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It is not a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage. The writ petition is dismissed. September 26, 2025 n.u. CRLP No. 22241 of 2025 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) High Court of Judicature at Allahabad