Nandita Dubey, J.:— The petitioner has fled this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:—
(i) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ and direct to the respondents to conduct proper enquiry by the CBI or any independent agency, in the interest of justice;
(ii) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire record;
(iii) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that his younger brother late Anish Kuraishi, was a contractor, who received petty contract from the M.V. Omini Company under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yogna. Respondent No. 5 also received contract from the company for diferent block. Respondent No. 5 had given a threat to his brother that if he had accepted the contract, he will face the dire consequences, but he ignored the threats and started the work. On 09.03.2021, his brother went to the site and while talking on mobile, some unknown person thrown a heavy stone, as a result of which he received serious injury on his head and succumbed to the injuries. On 10.03.2021, he made a written complaint to the police authorities. Thereafter he made several complaints to the police authorities, but till date no action has been taken against the private respondents. It is, therefore prayed that the respondent police authorities may be directed to take proper investigation of the case through C.B.I.
3. In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Supreme Court referring to the case of Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India, (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held:—
“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (supra), 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 Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC 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 investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation.
3. 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 alternate his 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 a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.”
4. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that police is not taking cognizance on his complaint. Hence, in view of the settled position of law, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C.
5. With the aforesaid liberty, this petition stands disposed of.