HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8718 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents no.1 to 4. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to respondent no.5 is dispensed with. 3. Instant petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondents to transfer the investigation to other independent agency in respect of FIR bearing Case Crime No.0174/2024 registered under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 332(c), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 115(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(2)9va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao, lodged by the petitioner against the family members of respondent no.5 and FIR No.0176/2024 under Sections 189(2), 191 (2), 332(c), 126(2), 76, 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Hasanganj, District Unnao, lodged by respondent no.5 against the petitioner and his family members. A further prayer is for a mandamus commanding the respondents to lodge the FIR of the death of the petitioner's mother by respondent no.5. 4. Learned AGA on the basis of instructions states that charge sheets have already been filed in both the aforesaid cases. 5. Considering the aforesaid, there cannot be any occasion for a direction for transfer of the investigation more particularly when the charge sheets Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satyendra Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Susheel Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) have already been submitted. 6. So far as the prayer for lodging of the FIR with respect to death of petitioner's mother is concerned, it would be open for the petitioner to approach the court concerned keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others - (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein the Supreme Court has held that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered or having been registered proper investigation is not being done then the remedy to the aggrieved person is not to go the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution but to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The same principle has been approved and reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam and Another vs. S. Janaki and anr., reported in (2020) 16 SCC 728. 7. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to file an appropriate application before the concerned Magistrate. In case the said application is filed the learned Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law. October 14, 2025 A. Katiyar CRLP No. 8718 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench