The failure to register a complaint disclosing cognizable offences as an FIR breaches the petitioner's fundamental right to justice, and the existence of a statutory alternative remedy does not bar the court from intervening.

1. The petitioner complains that, a writing dispatched by Speed Post on April 24, 2017 has not been registered by the concerned police station as a First Information Report (F.I.R). although the same discloses commission of cognizable offences.

2. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is a resident of Debra Police Station of District-Paschim Midnapore. An incident of sexual assault had happened in Kalimpong, District-Darjeeling in the course of her employment with a polytechnic college. The petitioner claims to be raped by the Chairman of the college. The police are yet to register the complaint as a FIR and take steps thereon. He draws the attention of the Court to the fact that, Debra Police Station had called upon the petitioner to give a statement.

3. Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State submits that, Kalimpong Police Station is yet to register the complaint as a F.I.R. as the Kalimpong Police Station did not receive such complaint.

4. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the private respondent refers to the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 (Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) and (2016) 6 SCC 277 (Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others). He submits that, the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy available under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. The petitioner should be asked to avail of such remedy.

5. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.

6. The complaint annexed to the writ petition discloses commission of cognizable offences under the IPC. The receipt of the complaint is disputed by the police authorities. There is, however, evidence to suggest that, the petitioner had dispatched the complaint by Speed Post. The postal receipts are annexed to the writ petition.

7. Sakiri Vasu (supra) is of the view that, a person has statutory alternative remedy under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. when the police do not register a complaint as a F.I.R. It also recognizes that, the existence of statutory alternative remedy is not a complete bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction. However, when a person has so many statutory remedies, such person should be asked to avail of the same before the High Court interferes therewith. The view expressed in Sakiri Vasu (supra) is reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra).

8. In the facts of the present case, there exists a statutory alternative remedy for the petitioner. However, existence of a statutory alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to the exercise of writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A person can approach the Writ Court notwithstanding the existence of statutory alternative remedy in the event such person is in a position to establish infringement of any fundamental right or where the authority concerned has acted without jurisdiction or where the impugned order is perverse or capricious.

9. The facts of the present case are startling. A lady claims being raped by the Chairman of a college in the course of the lady discharging her duties as a teacher of such polytechnic college. The complain discloses commission of cognizable offences. It is mandatory for a police officer receiving information of commission of offences cognizable, inter alia, under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code to register the same as a FIR. Non discharge of such a duty itself is a cognizable offence under Section 166A of the Indian Penal Code. The fundamental right of the petitioner to receive justice stands breached. Rule of law would stand violated in the event of failure to register the complaint as a FIR. The failure by itself has resulted in a commission of an offence. The Supreme Court in 2014 (2) SCC 1 (Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) is of the view that, registration of FIR is mandatory if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offenc