Alliraj Gounder Vs. the Inspector of Police and the Superintendent of Police, Special Crime Branch, Central Bureau of Investigation - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- markandey katju, c.j.1. this writ appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated 23.11.2004. heard the learned counsel for the appellant.2. the petitioner in his writ petition has prayed for a mandamus directing that the pending counter case in crime no.345 of 2003 and the closed parent-case in crime no.343 of 2003 on the file of the first respondent be transferred to the second respondent for a fresh investigation.3. the supreme court in c.b.i v. rajesh gandhi, 1997 crl.l.j 63 observed that an accused cannot have a say as to who should investigate the offence he is charged with. decision to investigate or decision on agency which should investigate does not attract the principles of natural justice. in our opinion the same principle applies to complainants also, and they cannot ordinarily have a say as to which agency should investigate an alleged criminal offence.4. moreover if the writ petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation being done by the police, he has a remedy to approach the magistrate concerned under section 156(3) cr.p.c vide h.s. bains v. state and if the said magistrate is satisfied about the allegations of the petitioner, he can direct the police agency which he deems to be appropriate to do the proper investigation into the complaint of the petitioner, and he can also monitor the police investigation.5. sub-section (3) of section 156, in other words, provides a check by the magistrates on the duties to be performed by the police 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 for the police to do it properly or do it again, and/or issue such other directions to the police as he deems appropriate for securing a proper investigation into the complaint.6. thus the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy under section 156(3) which he should avail of by approaching the magistrate. writ petitions of this nature should not be entertained by this court in view of the existence of the appropriate efficacious alternative remedy under the criminal procedure code itself, otherwise this court will be flooded with such writ petitions.7. with the above observation the writ appeal is dismissed. no costs. consequently wamp no.1679 of 2005 is also dismissed.