Allahabad High Court
VINDHYACHALversusSTATE OF UP AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed; the appropriate remedy is to approach the magistrate under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 (equivalent to Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.), not to seek a writ under Article 226.
Summary
The petitioner, Vindhyachal, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to investigate Crime No. 176 of 2026 without collusion and to conduct a fair, impartial investigation under several sections of the B.N.S. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s observations in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. to order and monitor investigations. It noted that the corresponding provision in the B.N.S.S., 2023 is Section 175(3). The Court held that the petitioner’s grievance should be addressed to the concerned magistrate under Section 175(3)/156(3) rather than through a writ under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as not a matter for the High Court’s interference.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the police to investigate a criminal case.
- Whether the petitioner’s remedy lies under Article 226 of the Constitution or under the magistrate’s powers under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023/Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 175(3), 191(2), 318(4), 319(2), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(3), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
Subjects
- mandamus
- police investigation
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
- Article 226
- writ petition
- magistrate's power
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21569 of 2026
Vindhyachal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kamal Kishor Mishra, Kavita Nishad,
Sanjeev Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the AGA for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no. 2 to investigate the matter relating to Case Crime No. 176 of 2026,
under Sections 191(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S.,
Police Station- Khajni, District- Gorakhpur, without any collusion of accused persons.
ii. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to conduct fair, impartial and uninfluenced investigation within stipulated
time in Case Crime No. 176 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 319(2), 318(4), 338,
336(3), 340(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station- Khajni, District- Gorakhpur. "
3. 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,
CRLP No. 21569 of 2026
2
and can monitor the same.
16. The 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).
17. In 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
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."
4. 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.
5. It is not a case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, at this stage.
6. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…