Smt. Muppidi Nagamani, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh,
2022 Latest Caselaw 544 AP

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH : AMARAVATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                         &
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                      WRIT APPEAL No. 104 of 2022

                          (Proceedings through virtual mode)

Muppidi Nagamani
W/o. Late Baburao, age 61 years,
R/o. Pathapeta, Aurangabad,
Kovvuru, West Godavari District.                               .. Appellant

          Versus

The State of Andhra Pradesh
Rep.by its Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Secretariat Buildings,
Velagapudi, Amaravati, Guntur District
and others.                                                    ..Respondents

Counsel for the appellant                     : Mr. S. Srinivasa Rao

Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3             : Government Pleader for Home.


                             JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Dt: 01.02.2022 (per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal would call in question the order dated

14.06.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No.10084 of

2021 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner.

2. The above writ petition preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner

was for a direction to the respondents to register FIR on the basis of the

complaint of the appellant/writ petitioner and investigate into the crime.

3. Learned single Judge has refused to entertain the writ petition on

the ground that if the FIR is not registered on the basis of the complaint,

the remedy of an aggrieved person is to file private complaint under

Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or to invoke provisions

contained in Sections 154(3) or 156(3) of the Code of Criminal

Procedure.

4. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,

reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

thus:

"25. 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) Cr.P.C.

26. 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?

27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). 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 Section 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.

28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere."

5. In view of the settled legal position, we are not inclined to

entertain this writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No

costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

GM