THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.38371 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Station House Officer, Abids Road, Police Station, 4^th Respondent in not registering the F.I.R. against 5^th Respondent and his associates despite in the enquiry conducted by him, it is found that after the Civil Court passed Judgment granting perpetual injunction restraining 5th respondent and his associates from dealing with the affairs of Centenary, 5^th Respondent withdrew huge sums of money without rendering the account as being arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct 4^th respondent to register the case against 5th respondent and associates in terms of the complaint made by the petitioner and take action as per the procedure contemplated under law in the interest of justice, and issue such other writ or order or direction as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of case.”

2. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Ms.P.Padmaja, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the contention of the petitioner regarding non-registration of the crime is unfounded, inasmuch as the respondent police authorities, after duly considering the averments made in the petitioner’s representation, opined that the dispute is civil in nature and, therefore, did not register a criminal case. It is further submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed W.P. No. 33215 of 2018 seeking a similar direction for registration of a crime, and this Court, by order dated 04.10.2018, dismissed the said writ petition, observing that the allegations raised therein were of a civil nature. Despite the same, the petitioner has again approached this Court with identical averments. Hence, the contention that the respondent police authorities failed to consider the petitioner’s representation is untenable. It is further submitted that, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, he ought to have availed the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), as the case may be. Accordingly, dismissal of the writ petition is prayed for.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a written complaint, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Having considered the explanation offered by the respondent police authorities, it is evident that they exercised their jurisdictional discretion in concluding that the dispute is civil in nature and, therefore, did not register a crime. Nonetheless, if the petitioner remains aggrieved, he is at liberty to avail appropriate statutory or civil remedies as permissible under law.

7. The legal position governing such matters is well settled. 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 failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the proper remedy does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism to redress such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequent judgments. Notably, in M. Subramaniam vs. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench reiterated that an aggrieved party must avail the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C., rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

9. In light of the settled legal position, and in the absenc