THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30333 OF 2011 ORDER: The relief sought for in this Writ Petition is to declare the action of the second respondent, in not investigating into Crime No.435 of 2011 dated 09.10.2011, and in not arresting the accused, as arbitrary and illegal. Sri Mohd. Islamuddin Ansari, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw attention of this Court to the First Information Report in Crime No.435 of 2011 wherein the petitioner’s complaint of a mob armed with stones and sticks attacking his house was alleged. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the petitioner would further state that the accused were still playing caroms in front of his house, and they had threatened him with dire consequences. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would fairly state that subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition eleven of those accused for the offences alleged in Crime No.435 of 2011 have since been arrested. He would, however, point out that the investigation is not being conducted on proper lines. Learned Government Pleader for Home would submit that the complaint was lodged only on 09.10.2011; the allegations are against a mob of more than 200 in number; the respondents have acted with promptitude; they have completed a major part of the investigation, including arresting eleven of the accused; several of those persons alleged to be involved in the crime were absconding; and in such matters, where several people are involved, it would not be possible to specify a particular period within which a final report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), would be filed. The very fact that eleven of the accused have been arrested subsequent to the filing of the Writ Petition does show that the respondents have taken action in the matter. As to whether the action taken is sufficient or not would require the investigation to be monitored. As held by the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the petitioner has an effective remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereunder the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of an offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation, if any, carried on. Since the petitioner seeks that the investigation be monitored, it is but appropriate that he invoke the jurisdiction of the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in this regard. Leaving it open for him to do so, the Writ Petition is closed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J November 23, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.30333 OF 2011 November 23, 2011 MD [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409