A party with grievances regarding FIR not registered by the police must pursue alternative remedies before approaching the High Court.

Raja Vijayaraghavan V, J.

The above-captioned Writ Appeal is preferred by the appellant, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(Crl.) No. 1463 of 2025.

2. The Writ Petition was filed seeking issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent police authorities to register an FIR and conduct a proper investigation into the alleged offences purportedly committed by the sister and brother-in-law of the appellant and certain postal authorities. Further relief was also sought, directing the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the sister of the appellant, along with other consequential reliefs.

3. The appellant, who is an Advocate by profession, alleged that the original Degree Certificate forwarded by the University of Kerala was delivered by the Postal Assistant (9th respondent) to his brother-in-law (10th respondent), who, in alleged conspiracy with the appellant’s sister (11th respondent), unlawfully retained the same and failed to hand it over to the appellant. It is further alleged that the 11th respondent subsequently returned the certificate to the University on the ground that the appellant refused to accept delivery.

4. The learned S ingle Judge, before whom the m atter was considered, recorded the submission of the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University that the certificate could be handed over to the appellant upon his approaching the University and, accordingly, issued appropriate directions in that regard.

5. It is evident from the pleadings and submissions that the attempt of the appellant was primarily to drag his own family members into unnecessary and avoidable litigation. In any event, the principal relief sought by the appellant, namely, issuance of a direction to the police to register a crime, could not have been granted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

6. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP and Others1 , the Apex Court had occasion to observe as under:

" 26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR h as n ot b een registered by the police station his first remedy i s t o a pproach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) C rPC o r

1 ( 2008 (2) SCC 409 )

other police officer referred to in Section 36 C rPC. I f d espite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the o fficer r eferred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, t hen h e c an approach a Magistrate under Section 156 (3) CrPC i nstead o f rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition o r a p etition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further r emedy o f filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. W hy t hen should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions b e e ntertained when there are so many alternative remedies?

27. As we have already observed above, t he M agistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of a n F IR a nd t o ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose h e c an monitor the investigation to ensure that the i nvestigation i s done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). T he H igh Court should discourage the practice of filing a w rit p etition o r petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a p erson h as a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by t he p olice, o r after being registered, proper investigation has n ot b een d one by the police. For this grievance, the remedy l ies u nder Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers c oncerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156 (3) CrPC b efore t he Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under S ection 2 00 CrPC and not by filing a w