Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Yellamelli Arjunudu, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 20 October, 2021

                                  1




     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY

                  Writ Petition No.22883 of 2021

ORDER:

The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that

the report lodged by him 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

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. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the

petitioner has already exhausted one of the remedies provided to

him under Cr.P.C. by complaining to the Superintendent of Police

by invoking Section 154(3) and there is still no proper response to

Petition and to direct the police to register the F.I.R. and

investigate the crime.

6. The said contention is also devoid of merit. Even if he has

exhausted the remedy contemplated under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.

by sending a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, and even

if there is no response from the Superintendent of Police, still the

same cannot be a ground to entertain the Writ Petition. He has

to exhaust the other remedies provided to him under Cr.P.C. The

said legal position is also not an undecided question of law. The

(2014) 2 SCC 1

Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2 held

at para.11 as follows:

"In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation."

7. Therefore, in view of the above analogy, the said contention

of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration.

8. It is also apt to note the observation made by the Supreme

Court at paras.25 and 26 of the said judgment regarding

maintainability of Writ Petitions in a given situation. At para.25,

it is held as follows:

"We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3)."

(2008) 2 SCC 409

9. At para.26 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:

"If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station, his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?"

10. At para.27 of the said judgment, it is held that the High

Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or

petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a

grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or

after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by

the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections

36 and 154(3) before the concerned police officers, and if that is

of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or

by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not

by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

11. Also held at para.28 of the said judgment that even though

alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it