IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a writ petition is not maintainable when alternate remedies under the CrPC are available for addressing police inaction.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Cheemalapati, J.

The appellant, who was the original writ petitioner, preferred this writ appeal feeling aggrieved by the orders dated 07.03.2024 passed by the learned single Judge in dismissing the writ petition vide W.P.No.1548 of 2014 filed by him to declare the inaction of the police officials in registering the crime against respondent no.6 despite making complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.

2. The grievance of the appellant, who was the writ petitioner in the writ petition covered under the orders impugned in this writ petition, in nutshell, is that he submitted a written complaint dated 26.09.2012 to the Superintendent of Police, West Godavari District, regarding misappropriation of Trust funds committed by respondent no.6 for his own purpose and as no case was registered and no action was taken by the police officials, he sent reminders and despite the same no crime was registered. Questioning the inaction, he filed the writ petition referred to above.

3. The learned Single Judge, upon considering the material available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel, dismissed the writ petition holding that the remedy available to the writ petitioner is by availing the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure but not by way of filing writ petition. The said orders are assailed in this Writ Appeal.

4. Heard Sri Srinivas Rao Pappu, learned counsel for appellant and Ms. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader for respondents.

5. Sri Srinivas Rao Pappu, learned counsel, would contend that whenever any public authority fails to perform any statutory duty mandated by law, the person aggrieved can avail writ remedy seeking a writ of mandamus for enforcement of the said duty. The learned counsel would further submit that Section 154(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure (in short “CrPC.”) and also the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 emphasizes that a mandatory duty is cast upon the Police Officer to register the First Information Report, whenever he receives information/report regarding commission of a cognizable offence. He would further submit that mere availability of an alternate remedy cannot and should not be a ground to dismiss the writ petition, when non performance of mandatory statutory duty declared by a constitutional court is very much glaring and patent. He would further submit that the learned single Judge did not consider the purport of Lalitha Kumari’s case (supra 1) in its true spirit and so also the other pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.2351 of 2023, pronounced on 08.08.2023, Sindhu Janak Nagargoje vs. The State of Maharasthra and erred in concluding that writ petition is not a proper remedy. The learned counsel would further contend that in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari’s case, which is binding on High Courts as per Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the learned single Judge ought to have allowed the writ petition directing the concerned police officials to register First Information Report, instead directing the petitioner to avail alternate remedy, which may ultimately lead to improper investigation causing injustice to the petitioner. Accordingly, prayed to allow the writ appeal.

6. Per contra, Ms. S. Pranathi, learned Special Government Pleader, would contend that Sections 154(3) and 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code provide an efficacious remedy to the person aggrieved of non-registration of the First Information Report. She would further submit that the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dealt with the issue of the remedies available to the aggrieved of non-registration of FIR in Sakari Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Sudhir Bhaskara Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 and in clear and unambiguous terms held that the complainant must avail of his alternate re