9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (11) TMI 1166 - HC - Indian LawsMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT - The writ jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate investigation. It is well settled that the High Court should normally refrain from giving prima facie decision, in case, where the entire facts are incomplete and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court. The issues involved whether factual or legal are of magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. In the present matter, we lack sufficient material. Therefore, the disputed facts cannot be examined under Article 226 of Constitution of India and once efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioner against the notice impugned, then discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India not exercised. The writ petition fails and is dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory remedy.
Issues Involved:
Challenge to impugned FIR and notices under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure; Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Availability of statutory remedy for the petitioner. Analysis: 1. Challenge to Impugned FIR and Notices: The writ petition was filed to challenge the FIR dated 12th September, 2020, and the notices issued on 5th November, 2021, under sections 420, 467, 468, 409, 107, 109, 120-B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, as well as under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court noted that the petitioner had a statutory remedy available to approach the Magistrate Court under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. for appropriate relief against the impugned notices. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction should not be used to stifle legitimate investigations and refrained from giving a prima facie decision due to incomplete and hazy facts. The judges highlighted that disputed facts cannot be examined under Article 226 of the Constitution without sufficient material, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of the availability of statutory remedy. 2. Exercise of Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226: The High Court deliberated on the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present matter. It was observed that in cases where facts are incomplete and evidence has not been fully collected or presented before the court, the High Court should refrain from giving a prima facie decision. The court stressed that the issues, whether factual or legal, were of significant magnitude and could not be properly assessed without sufficient material. Due to the lack of adequate material in the present case, the court declined to examine disputed facts under Article 226 and chose not to exercise discretionary jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed based on the availability of a statutory remedy for the petitioner against the impugned notices. 3. Availability of Statutory Remedy for the Petitioner: The judgment highlighted the importance of the petitioner's access to a statutory remedy against the impugned notices. It was noted that the petitioner had the option to seek appropriate relief by approaching the Magistrate Court under Sections 451 and 457 Cr.P.C. The court emphasized that since an efficacious statutory remedy was available to the petitioner, the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not exercised. The dismissal of the writ petition was primarily based on the ground that the petitioner had a statutory avenue to address the issues raised in the impugned notices, rendering the writ jurisdiction unnecessary in this instance. This detailed analysis of the judgment by the Allahabad High Court provides insights into the court's considerations regarding the challenge to the impugned FIR and notices, the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and the availability of a statutory remedy for the petitioner.
|
