JUDGMENT

1. The present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:-

'I. It is therefore, prayed that; this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities Police Authority to take appropriate action as per the proviso of Cr.P.C. by issuing appropriate writ of mandamus to compel him to perform their public duties in its entirety.

II. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the Superintendent of Police Bhopal to take appropriate action in the application of Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. 1973 and direct him to conduct disciplinary proceeding against police in-charge of subordinate police station.

III. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to decide the case on merit as petitioner is not interested to withdraw the instant writ petition on ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. 1973.

IV. Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice for abrogating the same.'

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the Police Authority in not taking appropriate action in the FIR under Section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. 1973. In this regard, petitioner has preferred representation before the Superintendent of Police, Bhopal on 19.04.2022 (Annexure P/2) but no action whatsoever has been taken thereupon. As such, the instant petition has been filed.

3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State contended that the relief prayed in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that petitioner is having an alternative efficacious remedy of filing complaint before the Magistrate under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. He further submits that it is well settled that disputed questions of fact cannot be looked into by this Court in Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the present petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

5. In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. And Others ((2008)2 SCC 409) has held as under:-

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 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. 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.

13. The same view was taken by this Court in Dilawar Singh vs. State of Delhi JT 2007 (10) SC 585 (vide para 17). We would further clarify that even if an FIR has been registered and even if the police has made the investigation, or is actually making the investigation, which the aggrieved person feels is not proper, such a person can approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., and if the Magistrate is satisfied he can order a proper investigation and take other suitable steps and pass such order orde