ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the report lodged by him before the police is not considered and registered as F.I.R. and the same is not investigated.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents 1 to 4.

3. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.

4. Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court rendered on the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already exhausted one of the remedies provided to him under Cr.P.C. by complaining to the Superintendent of Police by invoking Section 154(3) and there is still no proper response to register the F.I.R. Therefore, he would pray to entertain the Writ Petition and to direct the police to register the F.I.R. and investigate the crime.

6. The said contention is also devoid of merit. Even if he has exhausted the remedy contemplated under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by sending a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, and even if there is no response from the Superintendent of Police, still the same cannot be a ground to entertain the Writ Petition. He has to exhaust the other remedies provided to him under Cr.P.C. The said legal position is also not an undecided question of law. The

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2 held at para.11 as follows:

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.=

7. Therefore, in view of the above analogy, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration.

8. It is also apt to note the observation made by the Supreme Court at paras.25 and 26 of the said judgment regarding maintainability of Writ Petitions in a given situation. At para.2