1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.23915 of 2021
ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the report lodged by her before the police is not considered 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 4.
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 of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by 2 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.
5. Considering the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2, this Court has again recently in Yellamelli Arjunudu v. The State of A.P.3 held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable in the given facts and circumstances of the case.
6. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:23.10.2021.
cs 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409 3 Order dated 20.10.2021 passed in W.P.No.22883 of 2021.