Allahabad High Court
VIKAS CHAUDHARYversusSTATE OF UP AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner must pursue a protest petition under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., and the court lacks jurisdiction to order reinvestigation.
Summary
Vikas Chaudhary filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking an ad‑interim mandamus directing the DGP of Lucknow to reinvestigate Crime No. 173 of 2023 under IPC sections 504 and 506 and to submit a fresh police report. The State argued that the investigating officer had already filed a final report under Section 173(2) of the Cr.P.C. and that any grievance must be raised by filing a protest petition before the competent magistrate, citing Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police (1985). The Court examined the record, found the State’s objections substantiated, and held that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and the interim order vacated. The decision underscores that courts will not intervene in police investigations where a final report under Section 173(2) exists and the proper remedy is a protest petition.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained to direct reinvestigation of a case after a final police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has been filed.
- Whether the petitioner’s remedy lies in filing a protest petition before the jurisdictional magistrate as per the precedent set in Bhagwat Singh v. Commissioner of Police.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 173(2)
- Indian Penal Code — s. 504, 506
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- mandamus
- reinvestigation
- police report
- Section 173
- protest petition
- jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26514 of 2025
Vikas Chaudhary
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person, Akhilesh Kumar Tiwari, Arif
Ikbal, Sarphraj
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Mr. Vikas Chaudhary, the petitioner who appears in person and the
learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner-Vikas Chaudhary has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition with the following prayer :-
(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ad- ad-Interim Mandamus directing
the respondent no.2/D.G.P., Lucknow to re-investigate of Case Crime No. 173 of
2023, under section 504 and 506 of IPC Police Station Lodha, District Aligarh in
supervision of himself in the interest of justice in the aforesaid case crime and submit
the police report within stipulated period of time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court.
(ii) issue any suitable order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and
proper under the facts and circumstance of the case.
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2
and 3 submits that investigating officer upon completion of statutory
investigation of concerned case crime number has already submitted the
final report/police report dated 8.4.2024 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C.
In case, petitioner is aggrieved by the said police report, then remedy lies to
petitioner to file a protest petition before the jurisdictional magistrate in the
light of law laid down by Apex Court in the Case of Bhagwat Singh vs
Commissioner of Police & Anr. 1985, 2 SCC 537. It is thus urged by the
learned A.G.A. that in view of above, the present writ petition is liable to be
dismissed.
CRLP No. 26514 of 2025
2
5. When confronted with above, the petitioner who appears in person could
not over come the same.
6. Having heard, the petitioner appearing in person, the learned A.G.A. for
State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that
the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ
petition are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same could
not be dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioner with reference to the
record.
7. In view of above, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be
dismissed.
8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
April 20, 2026
Gaurav
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…