Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

AVINASH SIROHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the grievance must be pursued before the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) B.N.S.S., not through a writ under Article 226.

Summary

Avinash Sirohi filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to conduct a fair investigation into an FIR dated 12‑04‑2026. The petition relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Sakiri Vasu regarding the magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the CrPC to order further investigation. The High Court noted that the corresponding provision in the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S.S. 2023 is Section 175(3). It held that grievances about police investigation must be addressed to the concerned magistrate under these provisions, not through a writ under Article 226. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition as an inappropriate matter for its interference. The decision underscores the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in directing police investigations.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing police to conduct a fair investigation under Article 226.
  • Whether the petitioner must approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) B.N.S.S. for grievances about the investigation.
  • Whether Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S., 2023 provides an exclusive remedy for such investigation grievances.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • mandamus
  • investigation
  • Section 156(3) CrPC
  • Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
  • Article 226
  • High Court jurisdiction
  • police investigation
  • writ petition

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21600 of 2026

Avinash Sirohi
                                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                        Versus

State Of U.P. And 10 Others
                                                                   .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                    :   Brij Lal Shukla
Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   G.A., Gaurav Singh Sirohi

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

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the A.G.A. representing the
respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

The present petition has been filed for the following relief : -

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding direct the
respondent no.2 and 3 to conducted fair investigation in respect of First Information
Report dated 12.04.2026 in Case Crime No. 0084 of 2026, Under section 191(2), 131,
352, 115(2), 117(2), 309(6), 351(3) of BNS Police Station Bahsuma, District
MEERUT during the pendency of the present writ petition."

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
                                                                                                   CRLP No. 21600 of 2026
                                                                        2


                                    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."

                                    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.


                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Vipasha




Digitally signed by :-
VIPASHA MUKHERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.