1. Personal affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Deoria filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ghanshyam Kumar, learned AGA-I for the Staterespondents and perused the records.

3. In pith and substance, the petitioner is seeking direction to respondents to ensure fair, impartial and proper investigation in Case Crime No.0309/2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali District Deoria.

4. On 20.08.2024 following order was passed:-

"1. Heard Sri Rajiv Lochan Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondentsauthorities to conduct the fair investigation and conclude the investigation in Case Crime No.0309 of 2023, under Sections-419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC, Police Station-Kotwali, District-Deoria.

3. On 25.07.2024, following order was passed:

"1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 16.4.2023, giving rise to Case Crime No.0309 of 2023, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 409 IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Deoria. The petitioner have also prayed that they be not arrested in the aforesaid case.

2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that with regard to the FIR, which was lodged on 16.4.2023, investigation had not concluded. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the accused persons are influential persons and that during the past one year, five Investigating Officers had been changed.

3. Learned AGA to take specific instructions as to why so many Investigating Officers have been changed.

3. Learned AGA to take specific instructions as to why so many Investigating Officers have been changed.

4. In view of the above quoted order, learned AGA has supplied today copy of the instructions dated 14.08.2024 sent by the Superintendent of Police, Deoria, according to which he found that there was no qualitative progress in the matter and, therefore, the matter has been handed over to one Virendra Kumar Yadav of Crime Branch for inv

5. We find that in the present case, the allegation is that in past one year, five Investigating Officers have changed.

6. In such view of the matter, we find it appropriate to direct the respondent no.2-Superintendent of Police, Deoria to himself keep watch on the investigation that is being conducted in the present case and he shall file his own affidavit placing the status of the investigation on record by the next date.

7. Put up as fresh on 24.09.2024."

5. Pursuant to aforesaid order learned AGA has filed personal affidavit of Superintendent of Police, Deoria disclosing therein the progress made in the investigation.

6. In the case of Ajay Kumar Pandey versus State of U.P. and 2 others reported in 2021 (2) ADJ 239; this Court has observed that for such relief the remedies under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. be available. Paragraph nos.15, 16 & 17 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted as under:-

"15. In the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe (supra) (paras-2, 3 and 4), Hon'ble Supreme Court following the judgment in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) held 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), Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 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. Thus, the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court is that after registration of the First Information Report if proper investigation is not being done by the investigating officer, then informant may approach the magistrate concerned under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. so that proper investigation is done. A three judges bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Subramaniam and others vs. S. Janki and others (Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011 decided on 20.03.2020) quoted with approval the law laid down by two judges bench in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskar (supra) and thus, it affirmed the principles laid down in those judgments that even if a first information report has already been registered, on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can direct proper investigation and writ petition for this purpose should not generally be entertained by the High Court in view of the remedy available before the Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C.

16. In a recent judgment of this court dated 08.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.16288 of 2020 (Ram Shila Gupta vs. State of U.P. and 3 others), a Division Bench of this court has held as under:

"In the case of M. Subramanian and another Vs. Janki and another (Criminal Appeal No.102 of 2011) decided on 20.03.2020, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if FIR has already been registered then the Magistrate can direct proper investigation to be done which includes his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigation officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. The High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation and if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the complainant must avail of his alternative remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C 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 recommend to the Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate. The observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are also in reiteration of the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUDHIR BHASKARRAO TAMBE VS. HEMANT YASHWANT DHAGE AND OTHERS; 2016(6) SCC 277 and in the case of SAKIRI VASU VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, 2008(2) SCC 409.

In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any good reason to entertain the writ petition.

Consequently, considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available to him under law."

17. In view of the discussions made above, we hold that if an informant/ petitioner is aggrieved that proper/ fair investigation is not being done by the investigating officer, then he/ she may approach the concerned Magistrate by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for appropriate orders instead of invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." 

7. In a recent judgment dated 17.07.2023, passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10929 of 2023, Pushpa Devi versus State of U.P. and 6 others; this Court has observed as under:-

"In view of the law noticed above, we dispose off this petition with liberty to the petitioner to invoke the power of the Magistrate available under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the light of the law laid down by the apex court as noticed above." 

8. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed of with the direction that in case the need so arrives the petitioner may avail the remedy of filing an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in the light of aforesaid judgments, annexing therewith copy of the present petition as well as personal affidavit of the Superintendent of Police Deoria.