THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 11325 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent No.4 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he has approached the respondents-authorities by submitting representation/complaint dt.07.04.2025, acknowledged on 08.04.2025, the respondents-authorities are not registering FIR/crime against the persons named therein, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal, arbitrary and in dereliction of duty and also contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sindhu Janak Nagargoje v/s. State of Maharashtra, 2023 LawSuit (SC) 784

3.1 Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the issue raised in the present Writ Petition is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in W.P.No.7159 of 2025 and batch dt.10.03.2025, whereby this Court having analyzed various decisions rendered by the Apex Court, in Sakiri Vasu v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh² and the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in M. Subramaniam and Ors. v/s. S. Janaki and Ors, (2020) 16 SCC 728 and other decisions of this Court had held that if the respondents-authorities refused to register a crime based on the complaint made by the complainant, he has to avail further remedies provided under Cr.P.C./BNSS and for the said reason, a Writ Petition under Article 226 is

not maintainable.

4. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that this Court in the aforesaid judgment, while referring to the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.24495 of 2019, dt.21.04.2020, W.P.No.8189 and 12691 of 2020, dt.31.01.2024, and also in W.P.No.37446 of 2022 and W.P.No.38397 of 2019, and the judgment of the Apex Court in M. Subramaniam (3 supra), wherein the dicta laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (2 supra) was reiterated, categorically held that a Writ of Mandamus cannot be

2 2008 (2) SCC 409

issued directing the respondents-authorities to register an FIR/crime, even though the complaint filed indicates commission of an offence.

5. Though learned counsel for the petitioner had placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Sindhu Janak Nagargoje (1 supra) to support his contention that the law laid down by the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, having been reiterated in the foresaid decision, a perusal of the aforesaid decision does not indicate that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can issue direction to register FIR, more particularly, in the light of the earlier decisions of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (2 supra) and M. Subramaniam (3 supra).

6. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents-authorities for registering a crime/FIR cannot be issued. However, as noted by the Coordinate Bench as well as this Court in W.P.No.7159 of 2025, the petitioner has to avail further remedies provided under Cr.P.C/BNSS.

7. Granting liberty as noted above, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

8. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:16.04.2025

GJ

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 11325 of 2025

16.04.2025 GJ