HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8681 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Lalji Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State/respondents and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:- "Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No.2 & 3 to conduct the proper investigation in the light of application given by the informant FIR No. 0383/2025 u/s 115 (2), 352, 351 (3), 118 (1), of B.N.S. registered at P.S Pisawan District Sitapur dated 02.09.2025 in the interest of justice. II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 Superintendent of Police District Sitapur to decide the representation dated 04.09.2025 within a stipulated time in the interest of justice." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the informant of the case. He further submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged on 02.09.2025, but till date the investigation has not been concluded, hence, he has come up before this Court by filing the present petition. 4. It is well settled in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 as reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 that in the event of unsatisfactory investigation, remedy of the aggrieved person is not to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant, Yashwant Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Lalji Prasad Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rafiulla Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Dhage and others (supra) are quoted hereinunder:- "2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 5. Thus, in view of the above, remedy, if any, for the petitioner is to approach the competent Magistrate in respect of his grievance. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition stands disposed of. September 22, 2025 Arpan CRLP No. 8681 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench