Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not to be exercised when an effective alternative remedy exists, as established in judicial precedents regarding FIR registration and investigation.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed on behalf of the petitioner inter alia seeking issuance of writ of mandamus for issuing direction to respondents no. 2 and 4 to take strict legal action against the accused and for providing protection to the life and property of the petitioner.

2. Mr. R K Ojha learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that petitioner is an old and widowed lady, and a retired police officer is trying to grab her property situated at E1, Gali No. 1, H. No. 511, Nehru Vihar, Dayalpur, Delhi-110094 with the assistance of local police personnel. It is also alleged that the retired police officer is also harassing, threatening, and torturing the petitioner so that she is forced to leave her residence. Learned counsel further submitted that petitioner has written multiple complaints to different authorities including the Commissioner, Delhi Police, however no action has been taken.

3. Per contra, Mr. Kamna Vohra, learned ASC appearing for State and police officials vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and stated that the petitioner has alternate remedy to approach the magistrate for registration of FIR and the filing of writ petition is nothing but misuse of the provision. It is submitted that after perusing the writ petition, it is evident that there is no ground available for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is therefore submitted that the same is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

4. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.

5. In order to appreciate the case at hand, it is pertinent to refer to the position of law laid down as to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court.

6. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Apex Court had held as follows:

"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice or where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged."

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277 has considered the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 and has held as under:

"2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 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 prope