Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 156255 (ALL)

RAM TIRATH v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 6 OTHERS

CRLP/7218/2025 · 2025-08-18

Rajesh Singh Chauhan, S Q H Rizvi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:48044-DB Court No. - 9 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7218 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ram Tirath Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Dhuriya Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Heard Shri Anil Kumar Nishad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S.N. Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(1) to issue a writ, order or direction in he nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to conclude investigation of Case Crime No.51 of 2025 FIR dated 29.03.2025, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Baba Bajar, District-Ayodhya, U.P. and produce the police report before the concerned court of law, in the interest of justice, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (2) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to transfer the investigation of Case Crime No.51 of 2025 FIR dated 29.03.2025, under Section 302 I.P.C., Police Station-Baba Bajar, District-Ayodhya, U.P., in which the Investigating Officer failed to perform his legal duty as per law, to any other independent agency in the light of order and judgment reported in 2001 (42) ACC 751 (Smt. Ramwati and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors.), as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition." 3. In view of the proposed order, the notices to opposite party Nos.6 & 7 are hereby dispensed with. 4. Shri Tilhari, learned Additional Government Advocate has raised a preliminary objection on the aforesaid prayers prayed by the petitioner by submitting that the prayer Nos.1 & 2 are self contradictory inasmuch as by means of prayer No.1 the petitioner is seeking direction to produce the police report having impression that the investigation has been completed and by means of prayer No.2 the petitioner is seeking direction for transfer of investigation from one agency to another agency. In the entire writ petition, no specific ground has been taken as to why he is seeking transfer of investigation. Besides, by means of writ petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India the prayer may not be sought to produce the charge-sheet if the investigation is pending. 5. Shri Tilhari has stated that he has no specific instructions as to whether the investigation has been completed or not, therefore, for that he may be given some reasonable time to seek specific instructions. 6. Be that as it may, if the investigation is pending, it is expected that the same may be conducted and concluded, strictly in accordance with law. If investigation has been completed and the police report has been filed, it is always open to the petitioner to take appropriate remedy before appropriate court of law, if the petitioner is so aggrieved, but in in any case, both the aforesaid prayers may not be granted at this stage. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage with the aforesaid observations. [Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.] [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 18.8.2025 Suresh/ Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench