- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Yellamelli Arjunudu v. State Of Andhra Pradesh
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition complaining that the report he lodged with the police was neither registered as a First Information Report (F.I.R.) nor investigated. The petitioner seeks a direction to the police to register the F.I.R. and investigate the alleged cognizable offence. The matter proceeded before this Court with the petitioner represented by counsel and official respondents by the Assistant Government Pleader for Home.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable when the police fail to register an F.I.R. based on a report disclosing a cognizable offence.
- What are the appropriate legal remedies available to an aggrieved person whose F.I.R. has not been registered or investigated by the police.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner contended that he has already exhausted one of the remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code by complaining to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.
- Despite this, there has been no proper response or registration of the F.I.R., and therefore, the writ petition should be entertained to direct the police to register the F.I.R. and investigate the crime.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 | Clarification on the non-maintainability of writ petitions for direction to register an F.I.R. when alternative remedies exist. | The Court distinguished this precedent to emphasize that writ petitions seeking direction to register F.I.R. are not maintainable when alternative remedies under Cr.P.C. are available. |
| Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 | Elaborated the proper sequence of remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 Cr.P.C. for grievances relating to non-registration or non-investigation of F.I.R. | The Court relied on this precedent to hold that the petitioner must exhaust remedies under Cr.P.C. before approaching the High Court by way of writ petition. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that the legal position regarding non-registration of an F.I.R. is well settled by the Apex Court and this High Court. When the police fail to register an F.I.R. disclosing a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person’s remedy is not by filing a writ petition under Article 226 but by exhausting statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 190 read with Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.
The Court referred to its earlier judgment in a batch of writ petitions disposed on 30.07.2020, reaffirming that writ petitions seeking direction to police to register an F.I.R. are not maintainable. The distinction between the ratio in Lalitha Kumari and similar cases was explained to clarify this position.
Regarding the petitioner’s claim of having exhausted the remedy under Section 154(3) by complaining to the Superintendent of Police, the Court held that even if such a complaint yields no response, it does not justify entertaining a writ petition. The petitioner must also exhaust other remedies under the Cr.P.C., including approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and filing a complaint under Section 200.
The Court extensively quoted the Supreme Court’s observations in Sakiri Vasu, which discourage High Courts from entertaining writ petitions or petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because an F.I.R. is not registered or investigated properly. Instead, the petitioner should follow the prescribed statutory remedies in sequence.
The Court emphasized that although alternative remedies are not an absolute bar to writ petitions, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere when such remedies are available and unexhausted.
Holding and Implications
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
The petitioner is at liberty to exhaust other statutory remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code for redressal of his grievance, including approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) and filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. No costs are awarded. The dismissal does not set any new precedent but reaffirms the settled legal position discouraging writ petitions in such matters.
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy, J.:— The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the report lodged by him before the police is not considered and registered as F.I.R. and the same is not investigated.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for official respondents 1 to 4.
3. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.
4. Considering the earlier judgments of the Apex Court rendered on the same issue, this Court in a batch of writ petitions, disposed of on 30.07.2020 in W.P. No. 8384 of 2020 and batch, held that when police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 1 and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has already exhausted one of the remedies provided to him under Cr.P.C. by complaining to the Superintendent of Police by invoking Section 154(3) and there is still no proper response to register the F.I.R. Therefore, he would pray to entertain the Writ Petition and to direct the police to register the F.I.R. and investigate the crime.
6. The said contention is also devoid of merit. Even if he has exhausted the remedy contemplated under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by sending a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, and even if there is no response from the Superintendent of Police, still the same cannot be a ground to entertain the Writ Petition. He has to exhaust the other remedies provided to him under Cr.P.C. The said legal position is also not an undecided question of law. The Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 held at para.11 as follows:
“In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.”
7. Therefore, in view of the above analogy, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner merits no consideration.
8. It is also apt to note the observation made by the Supreme Court at paras.25 and 26 of the said judgment regarding maintainability of Writ Petitions in a given situation. At para.25, it is held as follows:
“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).”
9. At para.26 of the said judgment, it is held as follows:
“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?”
10. At para.27 of the said judgment, it is held that 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 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.
11. Also held at para.28 of the said judgment that even though 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.
12. Therefore, in the light of the law enunciated by the Apex Court in the above judgment, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the petitioner is at liberty to exhaust other remedies for redressal of his grievance, as discussed supra. No costs.
13. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
Alert