A writ petition for FIR registration is not maintainable; the aggrieved must approach the Magistrate under relevant sections of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER

This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking following reliefs:

“I. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent’s police personnel to register the case against the accused persons if cognizable in nature and arrest immediately put up the charge sheet against them for trial before the competent court.

II. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deem fit may also be granted.”

2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner has approached the respondents for registration of FIR but no action has been taken.

3. It is submitted by counsel for the State that it is well established principle of law that a Writ Petition for registration of FIR is not maintainable bbeeccaauussee ppeettiittiioonneerr hhaass aann eeffffiiccaacciioouuss rreemmeeddyy ooff approaching the Trial Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. (Section 223 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.

5. The moot question for consideration is as to whether a Writ Petition for direction to the Police to register FIR is maintainable or not? 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and others vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171 has held as under :-

“7. Whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same. The basic question is as to what course is to be adopted if the police does not do it. As was held in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] and reiterated in Gangadhar case [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] the remedy available is as set out above by filing a complaint before the Magistrate. Though it was faintly suggested that there was conflict in the views in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [[((22000066)) 55 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] , we find that the view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] related to the action required to be taken by the police when any cognizable offence is brought to its notice.

In Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] the basic issue did not relate to the methodology to be adopted which was expressly dealt with in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] and Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] . The view expressed in Ramesh Kumari case [(2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678 : AIR 2006 SC 1322] was reiterated in Lallan Chaudhary v. State of Bihar [(2006) 12 SCC 229 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 684 : AIR 2006 SC 3376] . The course available, when the police does not carry out the statutory requirements under Section 154 was directly in issue in All India Institute of Medical Sciences case [(1996) 11 SCC 582 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 303] , Gangadhar case [ (2004) 7 SCC 768 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 404] , Hari Singh case [(2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63] and Minu Kumari case [(2006) 4 SCC 359 : (2006) 2 SCC (Cri) 310] . The correct position in law, therefore, is that the police officials ought to register the FIR whenever facts brought to their notice show that cognizable offence has been made out. In cassee tthhee ppoolliiccee officials fail