Allahabad High Court
MAHENDRA SINGH TYAGIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the investigation; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Mahendra Singh Tyagi filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police officers (Respondents No. 2 and 3) to conduct a fair investigation into Crime No. 307 of 2023 under various IPC sections. The petitioner argued that the investigation was unsatisfactory and that the High Court could intervene under Article 226. The Court examined the scope of a magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, citing Supreme Court precedents that such power is independent and sufficient to order re‑opening or proper investigation. It noted that the equivalent provision in the Uttar Pradesh B.N.S.S., 2023 is Section 175(3), and that grievances about investigation should be addressed to the concerned magistrate, not the High Court. Consequently, the Court held it had no jurisdiction to issue the writ and dismissed the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ of mandamus directing police investigation under Article 226 of the Constitution
- Whether the petitioner should approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC/Section 175(3) B.N.S.S., 2023 instead of the High Court
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 175(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 173(8)
Subjects
- Mandamus
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Magistrate's powers
- Article 226
- Investigation
- High Court jurisdiction
- Criminal Procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21605 of 2026
Mahendra Singh Tyagi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 10 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Zubair
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
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:-
"I. Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing and
commanding the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to conduct a fair investigation in Case
Crime No. 307 of 2023, Under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B, 427, 406, 379, 380, 371,
504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Agra."
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).
CRLP No. 21605 of 2026
2
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
Checking your session…