THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.34579 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions to declare the inaction on the part of the 5th respondent in registering an FIR on the complaint filed by the petitioner dated 03.11.2017 as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in 2014 (2) SCC Pg.1 and to issue a consequential direction to the 5th respondent to register the FIR on the basis of the complaint of the petitioner dated 03.11.2017 against the respondents 6 to 8 in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. and to investigate into the same, and pass…”

2. Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the petitioner having submitted a representation dated 03.11.2017, the respondent police authorities failed to register a First Information Report (FIR) in accordance with law. Accordingly, learned Counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of a case based on the said representation.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on the other hand, submits that upon examination of the petitioner’s representation dated 03.11.2017, it was found that the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature. Consequently, the petitioner was advised to avail appropriate civil remedies before the competent forum. It is therefore contended that the allegations regarding non-registration of a crime and alleged inaction on the part of the police authorities are factually unfounded and legally untenable. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner was genuinely aggrieved by the action or inaction of the police authorities, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies provided under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”). Accordingly, it is contended that the relief sought in the present writ petition, namely, issuance of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India compelling the police to register a criminal case is not maintainable.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submission of a written complaint dated 03.11.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case.

7. The action taken by the police authorities, as reported by the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, indicates that the petitioner’s representation was duly considered and that the police exercised their jurisdictional discretion in deciding whether or not to register a crime. However, if the petitioner remains aggrieved by such decision, it is open to him to avail the appropriate remedies available under law.

8. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others [(2008) 2 SCC 409], the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically held that when the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the appropriate remedy is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that the Cr.P.C. provides an adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of such grievances.

9. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others [(2020) 16 SCC 728], a three- Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must first avail the statutory remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

10. In view of the settled legal position, and in the abs