High Courts should not entertain writ petitions for grievances regarding non-registration of FIRs or improper police investigations, as the law provides adequate alternative remedies for an aggrieved person to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate, who has the authority to monitor investigations and direct necessary police action.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 6; and Mr. A.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8.

2. In this writ petition, one of the grievances raised by the petitioner is that at the time of institution of the writ petition, there had been continuous harassments through different means to the petitioner, and the family of the petitioner, which harassments, according to the petitioner were meted out at the instance of the respondent no. 8, who was then a Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA]. The petitioner has stated that a number of complaints in the form of First Information Reports [FIRs] were lodged before the Police.

3. A reference of the complaints lodged by the petitioner is made in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 6, filed on 16.09.2024, in the following manner : -

4. It was the further grievance of the petitioner that the investigation in the afore-mentioned cases are being carried out by Police in tardy manner reflecting a lackadaisical attitude.

5. From the above Table, it is noticed that on the basis of the FIRs, a number of cases – both FIR cases and non- FIR cases – had been registered at Lumding Police Station at the instance of the petitioner. It is not known whether the investigation of the case, Lumding Police Station Case no. 131/2023 has been completed in the meantime or not. Be that as it may. If the petitioner has any grievance as regards the manner in which the investigation in the afore-stated case is being carried out, the petitioner has appropriate and adequate remedy under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2025 [previously, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973].

6. From the scheme contained in the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC.’, for short] [since repealed], more particularly, Section 154 and Section 156 thereto, it was settled that if a person had a grievance that the Officer In-Charge of the concerned Police Station was not registering his/her FIR under Section 154[1], CrPC, then he/she could approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 [3] CrPC by an application in writing. If that did not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR was not registered till then or that even after registering it, no proper investigation had been conducted, it was 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 was filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had the authority and jurisdiction to direct that the FIR be registered and also, on reaching satisfaction, to direct that a proper investigation be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation had been made. The Magistrate under the said provision also had the authority and jurisdiction to monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

7. Section 156, CrPC reads as under :-

156. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case –

[1] Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognnizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII.

[2] No proceeding of a police off