A writ petition for non-registration of FIR is not maintainable; appropriate legal remedies must be pursued first.

O R D E R:

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

“…to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd respondent in not extending the necessary protection to the petitioner and not registering any case against the persons named in the report dated 14.07.2016 in respect of the house bearing no.12- 11-1474/A/2 admeasuring 100 Sq., Yards in Survey No.168 situated at Warasiguda, Opp. Jamina Osmania Railway Station, Zamistanpur, Secunderabad as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law in the interest of justice and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case…”

2. None appears for the petitioner.

3. I have heard Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that no FIR has been registered on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint dated 14.07.2016. However, it is contended that the petitioner is not without remedy and ought to have approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by initiating appropriate proceedings as contemplated under law. He further points out that the issue of non-registration of a crime and the inaction of the police in that regard has been repeatedly considered by this Court in light of the settled legal position, which makes it clear that a writ petition filed solely for a direction to register a crime is not maintainable.

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

6. The relief sought by the petitioner is a direction to the Station House Officer, Chilkalguda Police Station, to register a case and take action against the persons named in his representation dated 14.07.2016. The grievance of the petitioner is, therefore, that the police authorities failed to register a case despite his complaint. The contention raised is no longer res integra, as the law on this issue has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

7. In this context, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, categorically held that a writ petition under Article 226 is ordinarily not maintainable when the grievance pertains to non-registration of an FIR, since the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (now substantially replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, wherever applicable) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy. The Court emphasized that such grievances must first be addressed by resorting to the remedies expressly provided in the Code.

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, AIR 2020 SC 387, wherein it was clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party in cases of non-registration of a crime is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under the procedure contemplated in law, rather than directly invoking writ jurisdiction.

9. In view of the above settled legal principles, 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 shown in the writ petition. In consequence, the present writ petition is held to be not maintainable. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies before the jurisdictional Magistrate, if the cause of action still survives, in accordance with law.

10. With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed