The scope of interference under Article 226 is restricted and cannot be put to action where an alternate remedy is available under the concerned statute: Telangana High Court
This particular decision is upheld by the High Court of Telangana through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. NAVEEN RAO in the case of Masuna Satheesh Kumar v. State of Telangana (WRIT PETITION No.174 OF 2021).
Facts:
In the instant case, the petitioner of the case is Manasuna Satish Kumar and the respondent of the case is the state of Telangana. The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner alleging that even though a cognizable crime was reported on 03-11-2020, no crime was registered by the concerned police authority of the concerned jurisdiction.
Judgement:
Court reiterating the position in such cases, said, “If the petitioner had grievance against non-registration of crime, he has an effective and efficacious remedy under the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, petitioner has to avail the remedy as available in law before invoking the jurisdiction of this Court.”
Reliance was placed on, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., where the Supreme Court said, “In our opinion Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police. Section 156(3) CrPC, though briefly worded, in our opinion, is very wide and it will include all such incidental powers as are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation”
Following the above law, present petition stood dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies as available in law on the issue of non-registration of crime stated to have been reported on 03-11-2020.
Judgement reviewed by – Arvind Roshan