The court emphasized that a petitioner must exhaust alternative remedies under the CrPC and BNSS before seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Manish Choudhury, J.

Heard Mr. B.K. Sen, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. S. Konwar, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1-5.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court instituting the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs / directions :-

[A] A writ in the nature of nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the Officer-In-Charge, Chandmari Police Station, Guwahati-3, to register the case under section 327/336/337/352/426/504/509 I.P.C; based on the F.I.R dated 23.12.2021 [Annexure-3], the F.I.R. dated 6.5.2022 [Annexure-4], and the F.I.R. dated 22.1.2024 [Annexre-7] lodged by the petitioner and for investigation of the cases in accordance with the law; and/or,

[B] A writ in the nature of nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondent authorities to act in accordance with the law under section 23 and 24 of the Mental Health Act, 1987, and also to provide for the security and protection to the life and property of the petitioner; and/or,

[C] Such further and other orders shall not be passed as your Lordships may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice; and,

[D] To make the Rule absolute on perusal of records and after hearing the parties to the case.

3. In so far as the prayer regarding a direction under Section 23 & Section 24 of the Mental Health Act, 1987 is concerned, this Court had observed in the Order dated 01.04.2024 that the Mental Health Act, 1987 had already been repealed. By the Order, the petitioner was directed to make necessary corrections in the writ petition. Though some corrections have been made by the petitioner, there is no correction made with regard to Prayer - B, quoted above, is concerned.

4. The case of the petitioner is also to the effect that the petitioner had submitted First Information Reports [FIRs] before the Officer-in-Charge, Chandmari Police Station on 23.12.2021, 06.05.2022 and 22.01.2024 respectively, but, the Officer-in-Charge, Chandmari Police Station did not register those FIRs to commence investigation into the offences, which, according to the petitioner, are cognizable offences.

5. From the scheme contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the code’ or ‘CrPC.’, for short], more particularly, Section 154 and 156 thereto, it is discernible that if a person has a grievance that the Officer In-Charge of the Jurisdictional Police Station is not registering his/her FIR under Section 154 [1], Cr.P.C., then he/she can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 [3] CrPC. by an application in writing. If that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered or that even after registering it, no proper investigation has been conducted, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 [3], CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If an application under Section 156 [3], CrPC is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case, where according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation has been made. The Magistrate can also under the said provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

6. It has been observed in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2008] 2 SCC 409, that the Magistrate had very wide powers under Section 156 [3] 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]. It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, CrPC simply because a person had a grievance that his/her FIR had not been registered by th