THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.36934 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 directing the respondents 1 to 4 (a) to register the Crime against the 5^th respondent and take up investigation under appropriate penal provisions of law on the complaint dated 18.09.2017 lodged by the petitioner and file charge sheet by subjecting the culprits to arrest and judicial remand (b) not to interfere with the civil disputes and insist the petitioner and her husband to heed to the terms of 5^th respondent and pay the alleged amount in any manner. (c) and pass..…”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the non- registration of a crime based on his representation dated 18.09.2017. It is contended that if the petitioner was aggrieved by such inaction, the proper course was to avail himself of the remedies expressly provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). Therefore, the filing of the present writ petition is not maintainable, as per the settled legal position.

He further submits that the respondent police have never interfered in any civil disputes, as pleaded by the petitioner, and that such allegations are unfounded and devoid of merit. Hence, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The principal contention of the petitioner relates to the failure of the police to register a crime on the basis of his representation dated 18.09.2017. It is, however, well settled that when an aggrieved person complains of inaction on the part of the police in registering a case, the proper and efficacious remedy lies in pursuing the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). Unless and until such statutory remedies are exhausted, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable, except in exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

7. This Court, in Govind Raju Sami v. State of Telangana, 2019 SCC OnLine TS 3491, by placing reliance on the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, held that recourse to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 without first availing the effective alternative remedies provided under the Cr.P.C./BNSS is legally impermissible. This principle has subsequently been reiterated and affirmed by a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, AIR 2020 SC 387. Thus, the contention of the petitioner regarding the registration of the crime, in the absence of any exceptional circumstance, is held to be not maintainable.

8. However, considering the submission that the respondent police are allegedly interfering in matters of a purely civil nature, it is deemed appropriate to direct the respondent police authorities to refrain from interfering in any disputes that are civil in nature between the petitioner and private parties. In the event that any investigation is warranted under law, the same shall be undertaken strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Cr.P.C./BNSS and other applicable legal provisions.

9. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition is partly allowed. In regard to registration of crime, the petitioner is, at liberty to avail appropriate remedies as available under law before the competent forum, if the cause still survives. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

________________ N.TUKARAMJI, J Date: 06.10.2025 mmr