THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.26960 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of 3rd respondent in not registering the crime against 4th respondent as per the report made by the petitioner dated 05.07.2018 under petition received at the Police Station on 07.07.2018 under petition ID 070718/00714 nor recording the statement of the petitioner as per law in vogue under criminal law as well as the verdict of the apex court in Lalitha Kumari V/s. State as well as abuse of power of Police consequentially, direct 3^rd respondent to register a crime basing on the report made by the petitioner dated 05.07.2018 under petition ID 070718/00714 by recording the statement of the petitioner as per law forthwith and to pass…”

2. Heard Mr. V.Sai Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D. Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the petitioner’s representation dated 05.07.2018, the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FIR. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

4. 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 view of the well-settled legal 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 submitting a written complaint dated 05.07.2018, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. 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 proper remedy does not lie in invoking 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 to redress such grievances.

7. 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 remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In light of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting India, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C. / Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if his grievance still survives.

9. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, 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: 20.11.2025

dpm