JUDGMENT

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

7-1 ;g fd] jLikUMUV dekd 1 yxk;r 3 dks ;g funf'kr fd;k tkos fd jsLikUMUV dekd 4 yxk;r 8 ds fo:) dk;okgh dj muds fo:) rRdky ,Q-vkb-vkj- ntZ djsA^^

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by inaction of the respondents/Police Authority in not registering the FIR against respondents No.4 to 7. Directions may be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3 to register the FIR as prayed.

3. Per contra learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State contends 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 dismissed at the threshold.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs State Of U.P. and Othe