The High Court does not entertain a writ petition to compel FIR registration when alternative remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code are available, reinforcing the requirement for exhaustion of such remedies.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

CRL.M.A. 19589/2021

Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

W.P.(CRL) 2431/2021

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to register First Information Report on the following complaints:

a) Complaint dated 25th February 2021 addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Daryaganj, New Delhi and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kamla Market;

b) Complaint dated 15th April 2021 addressed to SHO, Kamla Market, New Delhi; and

c) Complaint dated 21st August 2021 addressed to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, Daryaganj, New Delhi and Assistant Commissioner of Police, Kamla Market, New Delhi.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, no FIR has been registered by the police despite several complaints made to the police authorities on various dates as mentioned in the petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submitted that the incident had taken place in a public place and the said officer passed castiest remarks against the petitioner as she is a member of the Scheduled Castes. It is further submitted that the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as a special Act has been enacted to prevent atrocities against people belonging to the SC/ST community.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that on 21st May 2021, petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 for knowing the status of complaint dated 15th April 2021 addressed to the concerned SHO. In the reply received under the RTI Act, it is stated that the detailed enquiry has been conducted on the said complaint and found that no cognizable offence is made out against the alleged accused person. Therefore, after the detailed enquiry, the complaint was closed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Constitution Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Govt of U.P. & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1 wherein it was held that a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report upon receiving any information relating to commission of a cognizable offence.

6. On the issue of jurisdiction, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. V. M/S Commercial Steel Ltd., 2021 SCC OnLine SC 884 and Maharashtra Chess Association v. Union of India, (2020) 13 SCC 285. It is submitted that such incidents should be treated as rarest of rare cases and Investigating Agency should be directed to register the FIR. Further, it is submitted that not lodging the FIR by the police on the complaint made by the petitioner, who belongs to the SC Community, is a clear violation of her Fundamental Rights.

7. Heard. Issue notice. Ms. Nandita Rao, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State accepted notice and vehemently opposed the writ petition. She submitted that on the basis of the preliminary enquiry conducted, no cognizable offence has been made out. It is also submitted that as required for constituting an offence under the provisions of the statute, neither the incident had taken place in public place nor the complainant was present at the time of the alleged offence.

8. Learned Additional Stan