Hon’ble Surendra Singh, J.—The petitioner, aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, to the present writ petition has invoked our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to follow the paragraph 486 (I) and (III) of the U.P. Police Regulation and register the FIR and investigate the offences against the respondent Nos. 4 to 7.

2. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at a great length and learned AGA and perused the record of the writ petition.

3. Encapsulated facts are that the petitioner is the owner of landed property near Varanasi Development Authority. Rakesh Naik, a local M.L.A. and a Land Mafia, in collusion with one Abdul Kalam got executed a forged will dated 1.6.2002 in favour of one Ram Surat Patel. On coming to know about the will, petitioner in 2002 filed a suit for cancellation of the will deed before Civil Judge (SD) and obtained an injunction to maintain status quo. It is further alleged that by way of counter blast to exert pressure in Civil Suit, Rakesh Naik lodged an FIR against the petitioner on 24.2.2004 as crime No. 463 of 2004 under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act and also under Section 3/25 of Arms Act at police station Cantt, District Varanasi.

4. The petitioner was arrested in the aforesaid crime. His brother however, moved an application before the respondent No. 2 for initiating an enquiry which was conducted by Santosh Kumar (C.O.) District Varanasi. The Enquiry Officer (C.O.) submitted his report on 10.11.2004 to respondent No. 2 in favour of the petitioner. In the enquiry report CO- held that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in a fake recovery of 400 gms. of heroine, vide aforesaid crime number and thus he found the implication of the petitioner to be false under Section 8/21 of N.D.P.S. Act and also under Section 3/25 Arms Act.

5. In pursuance of enquiry report the I.O. (Dy. S.P.) submitted a final report under Section 169, Cr.P.C. in favour of the petitioner in the Court of Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act District Varanasi. The petitioner was released on bail by the Special Judge, N.D.P.S. Act on 8.12.2004. However, the crime was taken up for further investigation which culminated in submission of charge-sheet against the petitioner.

6. The petitioner thereafter preferred a Criminal Misc. Application No. 9155 of 2006 and Criminal Misc. Application No. 9183 of 2006 before this Hon’ble Court, both under Section 482, Cr.P.C., challenging the aforesaid charge sheet i.e. Under Section 8/21 N.D.P.S. Act (vide crime No. 463/04) and also under Section 3/25 Arms Act (vide crime No. 46/04). This Court vide its order dated 31.7.06 and 1.8.06 stayed the proceedings of lower Court in the aforesaid Criminal Misc. Applications which stay order is still in vogue. Respondent No. 2, however, initiated a departmental proceedings against the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 under Rule 14 sub-clause (i) of the U.P. Police Officers of the Subordinate Rank (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1991 in which the objection of the petitioner was invited.

7. The petitioner desires and now he has prayed that the proceedings against the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 be initiated under the provisions of paragraph No. 486 (I) and (III) of the U.P. Police Regulation as it was imperative on the part of the police authorities to lodge a FIR against them for the offence under IPC and get the matter investigated. According to the petitioner, his effort is to get the FIR registered against the respondent Nos. 4 to 7, yielded no result, although it should have been registered as envisaged under paragraph 486 (I) and (III) of the Police Regulation .

8. After hearing the petitioner’s Counsel in support of this petition and the learned AGA, we are of the considered opinion that prayer made in this writ petition is wholly misconceived and the petitioner has alternative statutory remedies available to him. Firstly, he should have filed an