A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable for the failure of police to register an FIR, as the Code of Criminal Procedure provides an adequate and efficacious statutory remedy.

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 action of the respondents police particularly 4th and 5th respondents in not registering the FIR basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.09.2019 even though after receipt of the said complaint not to register the FIR is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles natural justice and also violation of Article 14, 19, 21 and 300A of Constitution of India including the Apex Court Judgment Lalita Kumari Vs Government of Uttar Pradesh and consequently direct the respondents police to register the FIR and to take action against the culprits basing on the complaint of the petitioner dated 06.09.2019 in the interest of justice…….”

2. None for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondents.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, on instructions, submits that upon receipt of the petitioner’s representation dated 06.09.2019 and after conducting a prima facie preliminary enquiry, it was found that no crime was registered, as the dispute was civil in nature. 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 without first exhausting the statutory remedies available, in view of the well-settled legal position laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

5. I have perused the material available on record.

6. The grievance of the petitioner, in essence, is that despite submitting a complaint dated 06.09.2019, the concerned police authorities failed to register a case. The explanation offered by the respondent police authorities indicates that the representation was duly considered and that, in the exercise of their discretion, no crime was registered. Therefore, the allegation of inaction on the part of the respondent police authorities in response to the petitioner’s representation is unfounded.

7. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Others (AIR 2008 SC 907), categorically held that where the grievance pertains to the failure of the police to register a First Information Report (FIR), the appropriate remedy does not lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized that the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“Cr.P.C.”) provides an adequate and efficacious statutory mechanism for redressal of such grievances.

8. This principle has been consistently reaffirmed in subsequent judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Notably, in M. Subramaniam v. 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, except in exceptional circumstances.

9. In light of the aforesaid settled legal position, and in the absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be entertained. The statutory framework under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its successor legislation, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides adequate and efficacious remedies before the competent Magistrate, whic