THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.43542 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 Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent police in not entertaining and registering the FIR against the 4th respondent as mentioned in the complaint of the petitioner dated 11.11.2017 even though the respondent received the complaint is illegal and arbitrary and in violation of the law and procedure as contemplated under the Act and in violation of the guidelines of the Apex Court Judgment i.e., Lalitha Kumari Vs. Govt. of UP and ors and consequently direct the respondent police to register the FIR in accordance with procedure.…”

2. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.

3. Heard learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents No.1 to 3.

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 a written complaint dated 11.11.2017, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. Aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police authorities to register a crime.

7. The legal position on this issue is well settled and no longer res integra. 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., including filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the police to register an FIR, or initiating proceedings under Section 200 Cr.P.C. by way of a private complaint. 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 her grievance still persist.

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: 06.10.2025

CHS

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI WRIT PETITION No.43542 of 2017 DATE: 06.10.2025

CHS