VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Allahabad High Court 2023 › High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Poonam Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. and Others

Disposed off/Decided on merits
Court
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Decided
16 October 2023
Bench
Sangeeta Chandra, Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I
Case no.
8031/2023

Judgment

Court No. - 10 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8031 of 2023 Petitioner :- Smt. Poonam Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. U.P. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Dayal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. who appears on behalf of State-respondents.

¶2This petition has been filed with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite parties to ensure fair and proper investigation by the investigating officer in relation to Case Crime No.400 of 2023 under Section 323, 354, 498-A of I.P.C. and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Action Act, 1961 registered at Police Station-P.G.I., District-Lucknow.

¶3Learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition as such direction cannot be granted by this Court in these proceedings.

¶4We have perused the averments made in the writ petition and are not convinced that any direction, as has been prayed for by the petitioner in this writ petition, can be granted in these proceedings. The Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 relying upon an earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in

(2008) 2 SCC 469 has held that this Court normally should not entertain such petitions for the reason that complainant in such situations is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

¶5Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition, which is hereby disposed of with the observation that it will be open to the petitioner to approach the Magistrate concerned by moving an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If any such application is moved by the petitioner/complainant, the same shall be dealt in accordance with law by the Magistrate concerned. Order Date :- 16.10.2023 -Amit K-High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Source: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.