JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Krishna Prajapati, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the State.

2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to complete the preliminary enquiry and after completing the preliminary enquiry to register the First Information Report with regard to transfer of land for which the petitioner has represented before the respondents.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has explained the facts for lodging of the First Information Report.

5. Petitioner has directly filed this petition under Article-226 of the Constitution of India and approached this Court, which is not an appropriate remedy. If an FIR has not been registered, the concerned person may approach the Magistrate in terms of the provisions of the Cr.P.C.

6. Reference in this regard has been made to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu Versus State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraphs-10, 11, 27 and 28 has held as follows :-

“10. It has been held by this Court in CBI v. Rajesh Gandhi (vide para 8) that no one can insist that an offence be investigated by a particular agency. We fully agree with the view in the aforesaid decision. An aggrieved person can only claim that the offence he alleges be investigated properly, but he has no right to claim that it be investigated by any particular agency of his choice.

11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even 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 is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) 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 was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.

27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers 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). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”

7. Further the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Versus Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors., reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 has followed the judgment passed in the case of Saki