The High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked for police inaction on FIR registration; remedies under Cr.P.C. must be pursued instead.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent No.2in registering complaint dated 11.03.2016 as FIR as illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional and vioaltive of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to register the FIR upon the petitioner’s complaint in the interest of justice..…”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the relief sought in the present writ petition—namely, a direction to the police authorities to register a criminal case—is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. I have carefully examined the materials placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having lodged written complaints dated 11.03.2016, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“ Cr.P.C .”) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C ., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156 (3) or 200 Cr.P.C ., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. In light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance still subsist.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.