THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.11308 of 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ or direction one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents Nos.2 and 3 in not considering the complaint of the petitioner dated 17-03-2018 and 16-03-2018 by registering the FIR against the unofficial respondents in view of the Judgment rendered by the Honourable Apex Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1, is arbitrary and illegal and consequently issue a direction to the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the compliant by investigating the matter by taking appropriate action as per law and to pass.…”

2. Heard Mr. Mohd. Asifuddin, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the petitioner’s representations dated 16.03.2018 and 17.03.2018, the respondent police authorities failed to register a crime/FIR. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the respondent police authorities or the officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

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 the written complaints dated 16.03.2018 and

17.03.2018, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case.

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.. 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. However, reserving the right of the petitioner to file appropriate petition for revival of the present writ petition, if cause still survives, 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: 25.11.2025 dpm