Jharkhand High Court
Anita Lakra vs The State Of Jharkhand on 30 August, 2022
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 89 of 2022
Anita Lakra ...... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi
3. Rural Superintendent of Police, Ranchi
4. Superintendent of Police, Gumla
5. Officer incharge, Bero Police Station, Bero, Ranchi
6. Pintu Keshri
7. Shiv Singh ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
---------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navin Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G.-II.
05/Dated: 30/08/2022
Heard Mr. Navin Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
2. This petition has been filed for registration of F.I.R. on the
complaint filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has paid
amount to the O.P. Nos. 6 and 7 from the retiral benefit of her husband. He further
submits that inspite of that police has not registered F.I.R. He further submits that in
the light of judgment in the case of "Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of Uttar Pradesh"
(2014) 2 SCC 1, the police is bound to register the case.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that petitioner has
approached this Court by way of filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. He further submits that the petitioner is having alternative remedy. He
further submits that it is well settled that if alternative remedy is there, the writ
petition is not maintainable. In support of his contention learned counsel for the
respondent-State relied upon judgement in the case of "Sakiri Vasu Vrs. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Ors." reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 wherein paragraph 27
and 28 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"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 Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers
concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC 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. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further considered this aspect of the matter
in the case of "Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe Vrs. Hemant Yaswant Dhage &
Others" reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277 wherein judgment passed in "Sakiri
Vasu" (supra) was followed.
6. In view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue
is now well settled. If police is not registering the FIR, the remedy lies with the
complainant to approach the Magistrate in terms of Code of Criminal Procedure. This
alternative remedy is available to the complainant. In view of the aforesaid judgments
since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to
exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. Accordingly, the instant criminal writ petition stands dismissed with liberty to
the petitioner to avail alternative remedy.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/
