If there is an alternate remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. : Jharkhand High Court
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, it was referred by Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi of the Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Agha Sahnawaz vs The State Of Jharkhand [ W.P. (Cr.) No. 03 of 2021]
This order was passed over the facts The petitioner’s learned counsel contends that it is the petitioner’s right to file an F.I.R., and the respondents are also liable to file an F.I.R., which has not been done in a timely manner.
The learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that filing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution with the Hon’ble High Court is not an acceptable remedy. She claims that a proceeding under section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code has already been started. He claims that in these types of circumstances, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a remedy. He claims that if no FIR has been filed, the suggested informant should contact the Magistrate in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State relied on the decision in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [ (2008) 2 SCC 409]. In the case of “Sakiri Vasu” (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered this part of the subject in paragraphs 27 and 28, which read as follows:
“The Magistrate has extensive authority to direct the filing of a FIR and to guarantee that a proper investigation is carried out, and he can also supervise the inquiry to see that it is carried out properly. The High Court should discourage the filing of a writ petition or a 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 that once it has been registered, the police has not conducted a proper investigation. The remedy for this grievance is to file a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, not a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, before the police officers involved, and if that fails, to file a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or to file a criminal complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate.”
This judgment has also been relied upon by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of “M. Subramaniam & Anr Vrs. S. Janaki & Anr. [ (2020) SCC Online SC 341].
The problem is now well settled, owing to the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision. If the police do not record the FIR, the complainant has the option of going to the Magistrate under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The complaint has the option of using an alternative remedy. The Court is not inclined to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in light of the aforementioned judgements because the petitioner has an alternative remedy.
As a result, the instant criminal writ petition is dismissed, with the petitioner free to approach the Magistrate in question using the statutory remedy provided by the Cr.P.C.