THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.5361 OF 2018

ORDER:

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

“…to issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of Respondents 2 and 3 herein in not registering and investigating the complaint submitted by the Petitioner dated 28.09.2017 and 29.09.2017 and the action of the Respondent No.4 in returning the complaint submitted by the petitioner vide Memo No.H/1264/2017-20, dated 14.12.2017, as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the Provisions of Criminal Procedure Code and also in violation of the guidelines issued by the Honourable Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Reported in 2014 (2) SCC Page - 1, and consequently direct the Respondents 2 to 4 herein to register and investigate the complaint lodged by the Petitioner forthwith and to pass…”

2. Heard Mr. K.R.Sasidharan Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in not registering a crime based on the petitioner’s representations dated 28.09.2017 and 29.09.2017, the present writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate directions from this Court.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader, on instructions, submits that the complaints dated 28.09.2017 and

29.09.2017 were never received by the respondent-Police. However, based on a subsequent report submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Nirmal District, dated 12.10.2017, the Special Divisional Police Officer conducted an enquiry. Upon consideration of the available material, it was reported to the Superintendent of Police that no evidence was found to substantiate the allegations of forgery, and that the complaint appeared to have been motivated by political and personal animosity. Accordingly, it is contended that the petitioner’s allegations are unfounded, and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The essence of the petitioner’s grievance is that his report was not duly considered for registration of a crime. However, the explanation offered by the police authorities indicates that the petitioner’s representation dated 12.10.2017 was indeed considered, and after due enquiry, it was concluded that there was no substance in the allegations made. This factual position discloses that the police have acted upon the petitioner’s representation and taken an informed decision.

7. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the alleged inaction in registering an FIR, the appropriate course of action available to him lies under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhitha, 2023 (BNSS). It is now well settled by a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others [(2020) AIR SC 387] and Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) AIR SC 907] that a writ petition seeking a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of a crime simpliciter is not maintainable without first availing the efficacious alternative statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C./BNSS. 8. In view of the settled legal position, and as the petitioner has not availed the remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting the exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is not maintainable.

9. However, the rights of the petitioner are reserved to avail appropriate remedies available under the Cr.P.C./BNSS, if the cause of action still survives.

10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no