SHRAVAN KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

              HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21592 of 2026

Shravan Kumar Srivastava
                                                                        .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus
The State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                                      .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                :   Arvind Kumar Gupta, Syed Irfan Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s)                :   G.A.

Court No. - 45
                    HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
                    HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs :-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to direct
the respondents no. 4 to conduct the fair and proper investigation in to the matter and
submit the police report as soon as possible in pursuance of the First Information
Report dated 19/06.2026, registered as Case Crime No. 0289 of 2026, under Sections
137(2) B.N.S., Police Station-Kotwali, District-Maharajganj."

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.

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
                                                                                                  CRLP No. 21592 of 2026
                                                                       2

                                    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 23, 2026
                                    Anurag/-
                                                                      (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad