Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8728 (ALL)

MAHENDRA SINGH TYAGI v. STATE OF U.P. AND 10 OTHERS

CRLP/21605/2026 · 2026-09-22

Padam Narain Mishra, Salil Kumar Rai

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21605 of 2026 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, 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 directing and commanding the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to conduct a fair investigation in Case Crime No. 307 of 2023, Under Section 420, 467, 468, 120B, 427, 406, 379, 380, 371, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station - Shahganj, District - Agra." 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). Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Zubair Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mahendra Singh Tyagi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 10 Others .....Respondent(s) 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 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. September 23, 2026 Vipasha CRLP No. 21605 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIPASHA MUKHERJEE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad