THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7246 of 2017

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed with the following relief:

“…to issue a writ, order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 herein not registering the crime based on the complaint filed by the petitioner herein dated- 09.08.2016 and filed a final report without even conducting effective enquiry as illegal and against the law and pass...…”

2. Heard Mr.V.Raghunath, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Srinivas, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, pursuant to the representation dated 09.08.2016, the respondent police authorities have failed to register a crime/FIR. Accordingly, the learned counsel prays for issuance of an appropriate direction to the Superintendent of Police or the competent officer concerned to ensure registration of the case.

4. 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 submitting a written complaint dated 09.08.2016, the concerned police authorities have failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position governing such issues is well settled. 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 the refusal or failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the appropriate course of action is not to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court observed that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism to redress such grievances, and that an aggrieved party must first resort to the remedies available thereunder before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent decisions. In particular, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki & Others (AIR 2020 SC 387), a three-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that, in cases of alleged inaction by the police, the appropriate remedy for an aggrieved person is to invoke the procedure under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate for a direction to register an FIR, or to file a private complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. The Court made it clear that bypassing these remedies and directly invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is impermissible, except in cases involving exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.

9. In light of these authoritative pronouncements, and in the absence of any such exceptional or extraordinary circumstances in the present case, this Court finds that the relief sought by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure provides sufficient and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, which the petitioner is at liberty to pursue in accordance with law should his grievance still subsist.

10. 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: 27.10.2025

CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.7246 of 2017 DATE: 27.10.2025

CHS