Allahabad High Court
DR. PRABHAT KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that the petition is not maintainable and the correct remedy is to approach the magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) CrPC, dismissing the writ.
Summary
Dr. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the investigating officer to conclude the investigation of crime No. 172 of 2026 under sections 352, 351(3), 318(4) of the BNSS. The petition relied on Supreme Court observations in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh regarding the scope of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The High Court noted that the BNSS 2023 contains a provision, Section 175(3), analogous to Section 156(3) CrPC, which provides the appropriate remedy for grievances about police investigations. The Court held that the petitioner must approach the concerned magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) CrPC rather than seek interference from the High Court. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable before this Court.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition under Article 226 directing the police to complete an investigation under the BNSS.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for alleged investigative deficiencies is a mandamus from the High Court or an application under Section 175(3) BNSS/Section 156(3) CrPC before a magistrate.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 175(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3), 173(8)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 175(3) BNSS
- investigation
- Article 226
- magistrate jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21650 of 2026
Dr. Prabhat Kumar Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar
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
respondents.
The present petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
investigating officer to direct the respondents authorities to conclude the investigation
of the crime no. 172 of 2026 under sections 352, 351(3), 318(4) BNSS registered at
police station Kotwali, district Maharajganj in fair manner so that logical conclusion
may be arrived."
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. 21650 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
Satyam
Digitally signed by :-
SATYAM AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…