Vandana Yagnavalkya Patel vs State Of Gujarat & 2 Other(S)

Ilesh J. Vora, J

By way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ or directions directing the police authorities to register

the FIR as per the Complaint dated 20.12.2018 & 21.12.2018 preferred before the Respondent No.2 & 3 at “Annexure-Aâ€​;â€​

Heard Mr. Suraj A. Shukla, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State.

The writ petitioner has filed this writ petition for directing the police authorities to register the FIR as per the Complaints dated 20.12.2018 &

21.12.2018 preferred before the Respondent No.2 & 3 at “Annexure-Aâ€​.

The grievance of the writ petitioner is that inspite of the written complaints, the concerned authority has not taken proper action and therefore,

necessary direction directing the police authorities to register the FIR as per the Complaints dated 20.12.2018 & 21.12.2018 preferred before the

Respondent No.2 & 3 at “Annexure-A, is required to be given.

On the other hand, Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP appearing for the respondent-State submits that approaching the Hon’ble High Court by

filing application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a proper remedy. She submits that the petitioner has remedy available under the

provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Relying on the case of “Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh†reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409,

she submits that the Magistrate concerned can direct for proper investigation.

In case of Sakiri Vasu (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has considered this aspect of the matter in paragraph nos.27 and 28 which reads 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 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.

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.â€​

In case of “Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage†reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277, the decision of “Sakiri Vasu (supra)

was followed. In paragraph no.2 of the judgment, the Apex Court has held as under:

“2. that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being

done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the

Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Section 156(3) Cr.PC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie,

satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his

discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have

said this is Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with the petitions praying for

registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.â€​

A caution has been put at paragraph no.3 which reads as under:

“We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to

do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach

the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the

first information report and also ensure an proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.â€​

Applying the aforesaid dictum of law in the facts of the present case, when alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, this Court is not

required to exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed with a liberty to the writ petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magisterial Court

concerned by invoking the statutory remedy available under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the case. Rule is discharged.