THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8080 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 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, to declare the non- registration of crime by the respondents complaint of the Petitioner dt.11.02.2017 as being illegal and violative of the guidelines framed by the Honble Supreme Court in LALITH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF U.P. and consequently direct the 3rd respondent to bring the culprits to book in terms of the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Amended Act, 2015, and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case...…”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

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 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 having submitted a written complaint dated 11.02.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached 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 on this issue is well settled and in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that where the grievance relates to refusal by the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Instead, the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides an adequate and efficacious mechanism to address such grievances. The Court emphasized that recourse must be had to the statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. before seeking intervention under Article 226.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in later decisions. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that the proper course for an aggrieved party, in the event of police inaction, is to avail remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register an FIR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. The Court clarified that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is impermissible, save in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. In light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme under the Cr.P.C. provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue those remedies in accordance with law should his grievance still persist.

10. Accordingly, this 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: 17.10.2025 CHS THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.8080 of 2017 DATE: 17.10.2025

CHS