These Criminal Original Petitions are filed seeking a direction to the respondents to register the petitioners' complaints dated 17.08.2016.

2. Every Judge who is assigned the Section 482, Cr.P.C. portfolio has to perforce undergo an unenviable task of dealing with petitions praying for a direction to the police to register an FIR on the complaint that is said to have been given by the petitioners. Each Judge would devise his or her own mechanism to deal with the spate of such petitions which will be in hundreds week after week.

3. When I assumed this portfolio, I too had to deal with these petitions and the method I evolved was to read the complaints, hear the counsel for the petitioners and the Additional Public Prosecutor and pass the following orders, depending upon the facts obtaining in each case:-

i. Direction is given to the respondent police to register the complaint, if cognizable offence is made out and take action in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others-IV [(2014) 2 SCC 1] (for brevity Lalita Kumari-IV);

ii. If the dispute essentially appears to be civil in nature or involves money transaction, the case is closed with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law;

iii. In the event there being a counter case, the petition is closed directing the respondent police to enquire into the main case and the counter case;

iv. On the basis of the petitioner's complaint, if petition enquiry is conducted and closed, the petition is closed by handing over a copy of the closure report to the counsel for the petitioner across the Bar, with liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedy in the manner known to law;

v. In case the petition is sent by post, the petition is closed by directing the petitioner to appear in person before the respondent police with a further direction to the respondent police to enquire into the complaint and take action thereon in accordance with law, if it discloses the commission of a cognizable offence or drop action, if found otherwise; and

vi. If FIR has already been registered, the petition will be closed by recording the factum of registration of the FIR.

4. While things were passing thus, on 06.09.2016, the present petitions, viz., Crl.O.P. Nos. 19197, 19198, 19343 and 19359 to 19363 of 2016 filed for a similar relief, came up before me for admission and Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly submitted that a petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for such a direction is not maintainable, unless the petitioner has exhausted the alternative remedies available under Section 154(1), 154(3) and 156(3) Cr.P.C., in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2008) 2 SCC 409] (for brevity Sakiri Vasu ).

5. In view of the aforesaid submission made by Mr. Nithyaesh Natraj, this Court passed the following order:

“2. A reading of the above judgment, clearly shows that a petition filed under 482 of Cr.P.C. for a direction to the respondent police to register an FIR is not maintainable, unless the party exhausts all the alternative remedies available under the Cr.P.C. However, over a period of time, this Court has been entertaining such petitions, on account of which, this practice has come to stay and it requires a careful relook in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu's case (supra) and in view of the huge number of cases that are being filed for this relief, thereby, much time of the Court gets expended in deciding these petitions. This Court does not immediately want to depart from this procedure without giving an opportunity to the Bar to place its views.

3. Under such circumstances, the Registry is directed to notify the following proposition in the cause list enabling the members of the Bar to address this Court on 12.09.2016.

In the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri