A writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable for FIR non-registration when adequate remedies are available under statutory law.

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 order writ or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2^nd Respondent police in not taking the action against the respondent Nos.3 and 4 even though the petitioner approached the 2^nd respondent police and requested to take action in accordance with law but no response from the 2^nd respondent police is illegal and arbitrary…”

2. I have heard Mr. M.K. Raj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.R.Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.2 failed to register the crime against respondent Nos.3 and 4. Consequently, learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the Station House Officer-respondent No.2 to ensure registration of the case.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that it is not settled that the petitioner cannot invoke Section 226 of Constitution of India for direction for registration of crime except availing the alternative remedies available under law.

5. I have perused the materials on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that respondent No.2 failed to register a case against respondent Nos.3 and 4. 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, 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 , 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, 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.