HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21989 of 2025 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, 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 commanding and directing to the respondents to conclude investigation with logical end and arrest the private respondents (respondents No. 4 to 7) in pursuance of F.I.R dated 25.7.2025 registered as case crime No. 0171 of 2025 under sections 115(2), 351(3), 352 Β.Ν.S., 2023 Police Station Bidhnu District Kanpur Nagar (Vide Annexure No.1 to this writ petition) forthwith or within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble court." 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). 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhinav Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Smt Aneeta Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. October 9, 2025 Satyam CRLP No. 21989 of 2025 2 (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad