AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
SHALINI SINGH NAGPAL J.
The petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeks following directions to official respondents:-
To conduct fair, impartial and objective investigation in FIR No.162 dated 29.03.2026, under Sections 125(a), 125(b), 281, 324(4), 106 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Azad Nagar, District Hisar.
Not to falsely implicate the petitioner or driver of the truck in the aforementioned FIR.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that aforementioned FIR was registered on statement of complainant Tarun regarding a road accident which led to death of 1 person. The FIR neither disclosed any registration number of the offending vehicle nor name of the person who caused the accident. Petitioner was being called to the police station on the pretext that his truck caused the accident. CCTV footage of the alleged accident was being relied upon by the Investigating Officer which did not disclose any registration number of the vehicle nor established identity of the vehicle. He further submits that petitioner's truck was not involved in the accident and petitioner was being falsely implicated. Upon inspection of the truck, no fresh damage, impact, mark or physical indication of the accident was visible. Petitioner appeared before the police and cooperated in investigation. The prayer is to direct officials to conduct fair, impartial and objective investigation.
Notice of motion to official respondents only.
Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of official respondents and submits that it was a hit and run case. The driver along with the truck which caused the accident, fled from the spot. During investigation, from the CCTV footage obtained, truck number PB-06-AL-3888 was seen hitting the victim and fleeing the spot. Petitioner was called by way of notice under Section 133 of the Motor Vehicles Act being owner of the truck.
In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277, Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"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) 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. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is 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 be 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."
Similar were observations of Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam Vs. S. Janaki 2020 SCC OnLine SC 341.
In Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others, Criminal Appeal No.2325 of 2026, date of decision 04.05.2026, the Apex Court while referring to its previous decisions in Radha Krishan Industries Vs. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771, Rikhab Chand Jain Vs. Union of India, 2025 SCC OnLine 2510, All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India, (1996) 11 SCC 582, Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, observed as under:-
"7.Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. 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 conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise.
8.The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 ('BNSS') (erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ('CrPC')) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS.
The Jurisdictional Magistrate has wide powers to ensure fair and proper investigation and for this purpose, he can monitor investigation. Since, there is an express provision in the statute governing monitoring of investigation, there is no scope for invoking or exercising inherent powers of the Court. The Court is not inclined to issue any direction in the petition under Section 528 BNSS. Petitioner is at liberty to avail alternative remedy available to him, in accordance with law.
The petition stands disposed of, on the terms above.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.