Allahabad High Court
CHANDANI YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the appropriate remedy lies with the magistrate under Section 175(3)/156(3) and not with the High Court under Article 226.
Summary
Chandani Yadav filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a mandamus directing police officials (respondents No.2 and 3) to conduct a prompt, proper and fair investigation in Crime No.120 of 2026 under Section 103(1) of the B.N.S. and to complete it within the period prescribed by law. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s observations in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) that a magistrate can order further investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., and argued that the same power is mirrored in Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. 2023. The High Court examined whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 could be invoked for such a direction and held that the appropriate remedy is to approach the concerned magistrate under Section 175(3)/156(3). Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, stating that it is not a matter for interference at this stage.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to direct police investigation in the present case
- Whether the petitioner has a remedy under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) instead of approaching the High Court
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to issue a mandamus directing the police to complete the investigation
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S., 2023 — s. 175(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 156(3)
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- police investigation
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 175(3) B.N.S.S.
- Article 226
- High Court jurisdiction
- dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22963 of 2026
Chandani Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arun Yadav, Manoj Kumar Tiwari
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 :-
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondents
No.2 and 3 for making prompt, proper and fair investigation in Case Crime No.120 of
2026 under section 103(1) B.N.S., Police Station- Gagaha, District- Gorakhpur, but
the police of police station-Gagaha, District-Gorakhpur, and conclude investigation
within stipulated period as prescribed in the Act, and also take consequential
appropriate legal action against the accused persons."
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,
and can monitor the same.
16. The power in the Magistrate to order further investigation under Section 156(3) is
CRLP No. 22963 of 2026
2
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 30, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…