HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8887 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard Sri Manish Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. This petition has been filed with following main prayer:- "(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties No. 2 and 4 to conduct fair investigation in the First Information Report dated 09/08/2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0144 of 2025 under section 77, 78, 79, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, 67, 67a of IT act, at Police Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to take effective steps to arrest the accused person in pursuant to FIR dated 09/08/2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0144 of 2025 under section 77, 78, 79, 115(2), 351(3) of BNS, 67, 67a of IT act, at Police Gomti Nagar Vistar, District Lucknow, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 09.08.2025, but till date, investigation has not been concluded, hence, the petitioner has come up before this Court by filing the present petition. 4. It is well settled by the Hon'ble 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manish Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Komal @ Komal Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 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 her grievance. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is disposed of. September 26, 2025 Raj CRLP No. 8887 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAJ NIGAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench