The High Court should avoid entertaining writ petitions when an alternative remedy exists under the Criminal Procedure Code.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“(A) the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue to writ mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondents for proper of investigation from Chalala Police Station to other police station regard to FIR bearing C.R.No.I-4 of 2019 registered with Chalala Police Station under Section 279, 304(A), 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and

177 and 184 of the MVA Act only;

(B) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to Respondents for conduction a detailed proper investigation in FIR bearing C.R.NO.I-57/2018;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct respondent authorities to take necessary step to show PWD District OfÏces, Engineer M.R.Suma Mo:94285 64710, Dy. Engineer R.A.Parmar Mo:9879535943, S.O (Scission OfÏces) Board Mo:9409311114 and the owner of the company of the working in this contractors an accused in FIR bearing C.R.No.I-4 of 2019 and initiate action take against him.”

2. Heard Mr. Gaurang Chauhan, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-

State.

3. The writ petitioner has filed this writ petition for direction upon the respondent police authority to show the PWD District OfÏcers as an accused and to take steps against them pursuant to the FIR filed by the Petitioner before the Chalala Police Station and also prayed to transfer the investigation to any other police station.

4. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that the concerned authority has not taken proper action and therefore, necessary direction to carry out proper investigation by the concerned authority is required to be given.

5. On the other hand, Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State submits that approaching the Hon’ble High Court by filing application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. She submits that pursuant to the FIR bearing C.R. No.I-4 of 2019 registered with Chalala Police Station, Dist. Amreli, the petitioner has remedy available under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code , 1973. Relying on the case of “ Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 , she submits that the Magistrate concerned can direct for proper investigation.

6. In case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered this aspect of the matter in paragraph nos.27 and

28 which reads as under:

“27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154(3) before the concerned police ofÏcers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”

7. In case of “