THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.13154 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No.4 in not registering a F.I.R. against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner on 22.03.2018 as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and consequently direct 4th respondent to register a F.I.R. against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 pursuant to the complaint given by the petitioner on 22.03.2018 and prosecute accused in accordance with law and pass…”

2. Heard Mr. G.Sundaresan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 22.03.2018, the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FIR. Accordingly, learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of a case in accordance with law.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner’s representation dated 22.03.2018 was duly considered by the respondent authorities. Upon such consideration, it was found that the subject matter of the complaint pertains to a civil dispute, and therefore, no cognizable offence was made out warranting registration of an FIR. Accordingly, the petitioner was advised to avail appropriate civil remedies before the competent forum. It is therefore contended that the allegation of inaction or non- registration of a crime on the part of the police authorities is factually unfounded. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner was still aggrieved by the action of the police, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies provided under law and seeking a direction to compel the police to register a criminal case, is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in view of the well-settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submission of a written complaint dated 22.03.2018, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case.

7. The statement of the respondent police authorities is demonstrating that the representation of the petitioner has been considered and of exercising their jurisdictional discretion, crime has not been registered, as such, the contention of the petitioner that the representation has not been acted upon by the respondent police authorities cannot be acceptable. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he ought to have availed appropriate remedies available under law.

8. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. 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 failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of such grievances.

9. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

10. In view of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting