THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI

WRIT PETITION No.9131 of 2017

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, action of the Official Respondent Nos.1 to 6 more particularly the Respondent No.6 in not registering FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.9 to 18 in pursuance of the Petitioners written complaint dt.07.03.2017 as well as the Respondent No.5 is interfering highhandedly into the investigation despite the liberty was given by this Hon’ble Court in WP.No.46154 of 2016 on 21.02.2017 to lodge complaint before the Respondent No.6 as arbitrary, discriminatory highhanded and exfacie illegal dereliction of duty and also violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India and consequently may direct the Respondent No.6 to register FIR against the Unofficial Respondent Nos.9 to 18 in pursuance of the Petitioners written complaint dt.07.03.2017 with an immediate effect in the interest of

justice and may pass such other order..…”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 8.

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 examined the material available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a written complaint dated 07.03.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary 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 such matters 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 writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not to be invoked. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides a comprehensive and efficacious statutory mechanism to address such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently reiterated 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 reaffirmed that the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person lies within the framework of the Cr.P.C., including recourse to the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C., rather than invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court at the threshold.

9. In view of the above authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C. provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and it is always open to the petitioner to avail such remedies in accordance with law, should his grievance persist.

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

There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

_______________ N. TUKARAMJI, J Date: 24.09.2025 CHS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.9131 of 2017 DATE: 24.09.2025 CHS