The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory registration of FIR under Section 154 of Cr.P.C., the availability of remedies under Section 156(3), and the limitations of invoking writ jurisdiction when alternative remedies are available.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Pitale, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel with Mr. Ganesh Mate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Ms. Ketki Joshi, learned Public Prosecutor and Mr. A.S. Fulzele, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent-State authorities in these two petitions.

2. Both these petitions have come up for consideration for the first time before this Court. Although, the petitions pertain to different factual scenarios, but the question that is raised for consideration in both these petitions is common and therefore, these petitions have been taken up for consideration together.

3. Since, the petitioners in these petitions are seeking to invoke writ jurisdiction of this Court, the respondent-State authorities have raised a preliminary issue pertaining to the very maintainability of the present petitions, in the facts and circumstances of the cases. In fact, this Court also raised the question of maintainability of these petitions at the outset and therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners was called upon to address this Court on the said issue. Initially, a short adjournment was sought to bring to the notice of this Court relevant judgments. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State authorities have placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in order to buttress their respective stands.

4. Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that a perusal of the prayer clauses in these petitions would show that the petitioners are specifically referring to and relying upon and invoking Section 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in order to seek reliefs from this Court under writ jurisdiction. It is submitted that power under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. is not to be confused with the power under Section 154 thereof and therefore, reference to Section 156 of the Cr.P.C., particularly sub-section (3) thereof, is wholly irrelevant in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The aforesaid submission is emphatically made on the basis that the petitioners in these petitions cannot be relegated to the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.PC. It is the case of the petitioners that the facts and circumstances of the present cases and the specific grievance being raised on their behalf is relatable to and calling upon this Court to interpret the true scope of Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. It is specifically submitted that the factual position in both these petitions is completely covered under Section 157 of the Cr.P.C. and that therefore, the respondent-State authorities cannot be heard to say that applications ought to be filed by the petitioners before the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. for redressal of their grievances. This submission is made without prejudice to the contention of the petitioners that even if there is alternate remedy available under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C., the writ Court would not close its doors to the petitioners once grievance is made out that the respondent-State authorities i.e. police officers, have completely failed to perform their duties as expected under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It is submitted that the arguments pertaining to alternate remedy available to the petitioners under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. is misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present cases and therefore, the present petitions deserve to be entertained for further scrutiny and examination by this Court.

5. By referring to to the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari. vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, it is submitted that, although incidentally, Section 157 of Cr.P.C. did come up for interpretation in the said judgment, a proper appreciation of the law laid do