THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

O R D E R:

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

“…to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of WRIT OF MANDAMUS to declare the delay and inaction on the part of the respondent No.1 in registering the FIR and proceeding with the investigation by arresting the accused based on the complaint dated 28.09.2016 made by the petitioner even in spite of the contents of the complaint clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offence, as arbitrary, illegal and contrary to Section 154 Cr.P.C., and consequently direct the respondent No.1 to register the FIR based on the complaint dated 28.09.2016 made by the petitioner for the offence u/s 354, 448 r/w 506 IPC against the accused and conduct the investigation by arresting the accused in accordance with law…”

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Mr. R. Laxmikanth Reddy, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing on behalf of the respondents, would submit that, upon receiving the Police Report dated 28.09.2016 a preliminary enquiry had been conducted and as it is found that the contest is in civil nature, a final report was filed by endorsing the same on 30.01.2017. He further 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 position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

4. I have carefully perused the material placed on record.

5. The grievance of the petitioner, in substance, is that despite having written complaint dated 28.09.2016, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime. However, as per submission of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, as the aspect that the complaint has been received and properly addressed by the respondents/Police, the contest raised by the petitioner in the petition has been effectively addressed.

6. Nonetheless, the legal position governing matters of this nature is well settled and no longer res integra. 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 refusal of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the remedy of approaching the High Court under Article 226 is ordinarily not available. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) (now Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory framework to address such grievances.

7. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judicial pronouncements. Most notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified that the proper course for an aggrieved party is to avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200 Cr.P.C. rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In light of these settled legal principles, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances that would warrant intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory scheme provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, and the petitioner is at liberty to pursue such remedies in accordance with law, should her grievance still subsist.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if an