A writ petition under Article 226 challenging non-registration of an FIR is not maintainable without exhausting statutory remedies.

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in not taking any action against the 4th respondent inspite of the written complaint dt.13.02.2017 followed by repeated visits of the petitioner as being illegal arbitrary and unjust and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to take action against the 4th respondent pursuant to the complaint dt.13.02.2017 in accordance with Law and pass such other order or orders.…”

2. Heard Mr.V.Mallikarjuna Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the representation dated 13.02.2017 the police failed to register a Crime/FIR due to the undue influence exerted by the then Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA). Consequently, counsel prays for the issuance of an appropriate direction to the Superintendent of Police or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that filing of writ petition seeking a direction to register a case, is not maintainable as per the settled legal position. 5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that the concerned police authorities failed to register a case based on their representation dated 13.02.2017. Consequently, the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to compel the police to register a crime.

7. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 907, has laid down that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable when the grievance pertains to the non-registration of an FIR, inasmuch as the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) provides an adequate and efficacious remedy. Following this principle, this Court, in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana , reported in 2019 SCC OnLine TS 3491 reiterated that a petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedies available under the Cr.P.C (now replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) before invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. This legal position has been further reinforced by a three-judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others, reported in AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the appropriate remedy in such cases is to approach the Magistrate under the procedure contemplated in law, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction.

9. In view of the settled legal position, the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be entertained, particularly in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances demonstrated in the writ petition. The scheme of law provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, should the cause of action still subsist.