Ineffective police action complaints must follow statutory procedures; public law remedies under Article 226 are not available if alternate remedies exist.

JUDGMENT

The prayers in this Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are as follows:-

“i. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 2nd respondent to take follow up action on Exhibit P3 complaint filed by the petitioners against the respondents 3 to 5 invoking the provisions of Section 173(1) of BNS without any further delay.

ii. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order commanding the 1st respondent to consider and take follow up action on Exhibit P5 complaint filed by the petitioners against the respondents 3 to 5 invoking the provision 173(4) of BNS without any further delay.

And iii. To pass such orders or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice.”

2. The petitioners are accused Nos. 1 and 2 in Crime No.8 of 2026 of Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram registered alleging offences punishable under Sections 189 (2), 1912(2), 132, 121(1), 351, 296(b) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 117 (e) of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 .

3. The prosecution allegation is that the petitioners and the other accused voluntarily caused hurt to the police officers, while discharging their official duties. The prosecution alleges that the petitioners were engaged in illegal sand mining.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Police Officers attempted to snatch their mobile phone and forcibly took away a sum of Rs.5000/- kept in the shirt pocket of petitioner No.2. The petitioners filed a complaint before the Police.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor, upon instructions, submitted that the Police are in the process of ascertaining the genuineness of the complaint. The learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders and they have managed to frame a false case against the police officer.

6. Petitioner No.1 is the accused in the following cases:-

1) VKD PS Cr.No.476/15 u/s 379 IPC, 12,23 r/w

20 KPRB and RRS Act.

2) VKD PS Cr.No.378/15 u/s 379 IPC, 12,23 r/w

20 KPRB and RRS Act.

3) VKD PS Cr.No.510/15 u/s 379 IPC, 12,23 r/w

20 KPRB and RRS Act.

4) VKD PS Cr.No.540/15 u/s 379 IPC, 12,23 r/w

20 KPRB and RRS Act.

5) VKD PS Cr.No.262/16 u/s 379 IPC, 12,23 r/w

20 KPRB and RRS Act.

6) His name has been included in the rowdy list of the Vazhakkad Police Station, Malappuram.

7. Petitioner No.2 is the accused in the following cases:-

1) VKD PS Cr.No.502/16 u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC, 12,23 r/w 20 KPRB and RRS Act.

2) VKD PS Cr.No.506/16 u/s 379 r/w 34 IPC, 12,23 r/w 20 KPRB and RRS Act.

8. The petitioners contended that respondent No.2 has not taken any follow up action in the complaint filed by them.

9. When the information is laid with the police but no action on that behalf was taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to inquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the concerned police to investigate the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused.

10. In Sak