Directly approaching the High Court for non-registration of FIR is discouraged; proper legal remedies must be exhausted first.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2.Against non-registration of FIR, the petitioner by way of this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has straightaway approached this Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record as well as the written instruction received from the IIC, Raghunathapali PS as produced by Mr. T.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel.

4. In the context of non-registration of FIR, it is considered apt to reiterate the principle laid down in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others;

(2008) 2 SC 409, wherein the Apex Court at paragraph-27 has held 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 CrPC 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 Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.”

5. Admittedly, the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Court in any of the aforesaid provisions as indicated by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra) .

Further, the written instruction reveals that the possession of the premises of the petitioner was allegedly taken away in presence of Executive Magistrate, tenants, public witnesses and the entire process of taking possession was video graphed.

Further, the petitioner has not resorted to the jurisdictional forum in the matter of non-registration of FIR, and instead has approached this Court, but without any explanation for bypassing the jurisdictional forum.

6. In the circumstance and taking into consideration the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra), which has been subsequently followed by the Apex Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others ; (2016) 6 SCC 277 wherein the practice of directly approaching the High Court for police inaction has been deprecated, this Court considers it proper not to interfere in the CRLMP by issuing any direction to OP.

7. Hence, the present CRLMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed. It is, however, open to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law for redressal of his grievance.