THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7094 OF 2018

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein in taking any action in pursuance to the complaint lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 respectively against the persons who have played fraud on the family of the petitioner for their illegal enrichment and not even registering an FIR or causing any enquiries in terms of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of U.P. as being illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to take action on the complaints lodged by the petitioner on 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 respectively with them and to register an FIR and to pass…”

2. Heard Mr.M.Chalapathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.D.Pradeep, 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 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016, 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. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that the petitioner’s representations dated 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 were considered and as the averments are of civil in nature, the same were closed by insisting the petitioner to avail appropriate civil remedies. However, if the petitioner is still aggrieved, should have availed statutory remedies. It is further submitted 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.

5. I have perused the material placed on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a written complaint dated 31.05.2016 and 18.05.2016 the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. 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.

7. 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., including approaching the Magistrate under Sections 156(3) or 200, rather than directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court.

8. In light of the settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting intervention by this Court under Article 226, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Cr.P.C./BNSS provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law, if their grievance still survives.

9. Accordingly, with the above noted liberty, the 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: 06.11.2025 dpm THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N