Magistrate remedy for improper investigation prevails over writ intervention; High Court direction changing the Investigating Officer was set aside.

Where a complaint is that an FIR has not been registered or that investigation is not being properly conducted, the aggrieved person should ordinarily approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC rather than invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Magistrate may, if prima facie satisfied, direct registration of the FIR, ensure proper investigation, recommend change of the Investigating Officer where necessary, and monitor the investigation, but cannot conduct the investigation himself. The High Court's direction changing the Investigating Officer was therefore unsustainable and was set aside, with the matter remitted to the Magistrate for appropriate directions.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court should have exercised writ jurisdiction to direct change of the Investigating Officer and interfere with investigation, or whether the complainant was required to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for appropriate directions regarding investigation.

Analysis: The settled rule applied was that where a grievance is that an FIR has not been registered or that the investigation is not being properly conducted, the aggrieved person should ordinarily approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) rather than invoke Article 226. The Magistrate, if prima facie satisfied, may direct registration of the FIR, order proper investigation, recommend change of the Investigating Officer if necessary, and monitor the investigation, though the Magistrate cannot himself investigate.

Conclusion: The High Court's order directing change of the Investigating Officer was unsustainable and was set aside. The matter was remitted to the concerned Magistrate to ensure proper investigation and to pass appropriate directions under Section 156(3).

---