Failure to register FIR does not justify High Court intervention when alternative remedies are available.

JUDGMENT :

K. Babu, J.

The prayers in the Writ Petition are follows:-

“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction by setting aside Ext.P1 FIR and Ext. P8 final report and all further proceedings in S.T.No.274 of 2025 of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom.

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the 4th respondent to return the original driving licence of the petitioner unauthorisedly taken by an Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector named one Renjith S and in the event of its irrecoverable lost issue duplicate driving licence to the petitioner at the expense of the said erring officer within a time limit that may be fixed by this hon’ble court.

c) May dispense with filing of translation of Vernacular documents.

d) Issue such other appropriate writ order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit and just under the circumstances of the case.”

2. The petitioner, the accused in ST No.274/2025 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Vaikom, is alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the BNS .

3. The prosecution case is that the petitioner, on 12.11.2024 at about 6.30 p.m., drove a scooter bearing Registration No. KL 36 D 2502 in a rash and negligent manner so as to endanger human life and hit another scooter bearing Registration No. KL 36 G 0625, thereby causing injuries to CW3. The Police completed the investigation and submitted the Final Report.

4. The petitioner challenges the Final Report on the following grounds:-

(a)The Station House Officer did not record the information given by the petitioner as provided in Section 173 of the BNSS and register FIR.

(b)The Police did not conduct any preliminary enquiry as required in sub-section (3) of Section 173 .

5. I have heard the learned counsel of the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had given information regarding the accident to the SHO, who refused to record his statement. It is further submitted that when the SHO refused to record his statement, he filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police concerned, but no positive action was taken.

7. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Police issued notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, pursuant to which he appeared before the Police and cooperated with the investigation. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Police registered FIR in the matter and conducted investigation impartially and submitted Final Report.

8. The petitioner essentially challenges the Final Report on the ground that the SHO concerned (respondent No.7) did not conduct any preliminary enquiry as mandated under sub-section (3) of Section 173 of the BNSS.

9. Section 173 reads thus:-

173 - Information in cognizable cases (1)

Every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, irrespective of the area where the offence is committed, may be given orally or by electronic communication to an officer in charge of a police station, and if given--

(i) orally, it shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it;

(ii) by electronic communication, it shall be taken on record by him on being signed within three days by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Gov