Facts
The petitioner, Montosh Paul, filed a writ petition alleging continuous harassment of himself and his family at the instance of Respondent No. 8 (then a Member of Legislative Assembly)
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner lodged several complaints via email and FIRs with the Lumding Police Station between May 15, 2023, and May 30, 2023, regarding conspiracies to attack him and criminal trespass
Source reference: pp. 3-4The petitioner alleged that the police investigation into these cases was being conducted in a "tardy" and "lackadaisical" manner
Source reference: p. 4Additionally, the petitioner sought a direction for the State to provide police protection to his family
Source reference: p. 9Issues
1. Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner is aggrieved by a lackadaisical or improper police investigation
Source reference: p. 52. Whether the court should issue a direction for police protection in the absence of recent reported incidents of threat
Source reference: p. 9Law Applied
The court applied the settled principles from Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2008] 2 SCC 409, which held that if a person has a grievance regarding the non-registration of an FIR or an improper investigation, the remedy lies under Section 154(3) and Section 156(3) of the CrPC (now Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS) rather than a writ petition
Source reference: pp. 5-6The court further relied on Sudhir Bhaskarrao v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage [2016] 6 SCC 277, reinforcing that Magistrates have the implied power to monitor investigations and ensure they are conducted properly
Source reference: pp. 6-7The court noted that Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, is akin to Section 156 of the repealed CrPC
Source reference: p. 8Reasoning
The court observed that for the grievances regarding the investigation of Lumding Police Station Case No. 131/2023, the petitioner has "appropriate and adequate" statutory remedies under the BNSS
Source reference: p. 4The Court emphasized that under Section 175(3) of the BNSS, a Magistrate, upon being satisfied by an application supported by an affidavit, has the jurisdiction to order and monitor an investigation to ensure it is done properly
Source reference: p. 9Regarding the plea for police protection, the court analyzed a report from the Superintendent of Police, Hojai (Respondent No. 6), and noted the submission from both parties that no subsequent incidents had been reported since the filing of the petition
Source reference: p. 9Consequently, the court found no immediate cause of action to warrant a judicial directive for protection at this stage
Source reference: p. 9Holding
The court declined to interfere under Article 226 regarding the investigation, holding that the petitioner must avail the alternative remedy under Section 173(4) read with Section 175 of the BNSS by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate
The prayer for police protection was closed with the observation that the petitioner is at liberty to seek recourse in the future if a serious threat perception arises and the writ petition was accordingly disposed of
Source reference: pp. 9-10Original Court PDF
Montosh PaulvsThe Union Of India And 7 Ors
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in