JUDGMENT (ORAL)

G. Satapathy, J.—The grievance of the petitioner in this case is for a direction to OPNos.2 and 3 to register the FIR lodged under Annexure-1 series and to take necessary action.

2. Heard, learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Time and again, the Apex Court has reiterated that in case the grievance of the petitioner is for non-registration of FIR, he has to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by invoking the provisions of law. Admittedly, in this case, the petitioner has not approached the Magistrate against his grievance of non-registration of FIR, but instead of, he has directly approached this Court. What should be the approach of the aggrieved person for non-registration of FIR on his complaint has been outlined in Chapter XIII of the Bharatiya Nagarik Surakshya Sanhita, 2023 (in short, “BNSS”) and Sec. 175(3) therein provides powers to the Magistrate to order an investigation on the application of the aggrieved persons whose complaint has been refused by the police to register it as an FIR, provided the aggrieved persons satisfies the Magistrate to direct for an investigation. For the matter relating to non-registration of FIR and how to redress such grievance, this Court considers it apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others; (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein at paragraph- 27, it has held as under:-

“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.”

4. The principle as laid down in Sakiri Vasu(supra) has been reiterated with approval in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vrs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others; (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Apex Court at paragraphs-2 & 3 has held as under:-

“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu (supra) that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.

3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first info