1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.12583 of 2021
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the report lodged by them before the police is not received and registered as F.I.R. and the same is not investigated.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents 1 to 8.
3. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
4. Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court rendered on the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P.No.8384 of 2020 and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission 2 of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, no direction as sought for to the police to register the F.I.R. can be given.
5. However, as it is the grievance of the petitioners that respondents 7 and 8 police officials colluded with the unofficial respondents herein, who are respondents 9 to 11, and insisting the petitioners to deliver possession of the property in question to respondents 9 to 11. It amounts to interference by the police officials in a civil dispute pertaining to property rights of land between the petitioners and unofficial respondents 9 to 11. The respondents 7 and 8 are not competent to interfere in any such civil dispute and they are not justified in insisting the petitioners to deliver possession of the property in question to unofficial respondents 9 to 11. Therefore, they shall desist from resorting to any such illegal acts.
1(2014) 2 SCC 1 3
6. With the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:01.07.2021.
cs