The Orissa High Court has reiterated that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to compel the police to register a First Information Report (FIR) if the complainant has not first approached the appropriate Magistrate. The ruling came in a petition where the petitioner sought a direction to the police to register an FIR based on allegations of misconduct, without first pursuing the remedies available under law.
Justice Chittaranjan Dash, while dismissing the petition, clarified that though the police are under a statutory duty to register an FIR when information regarding a cognizable offence is received, the legal course available to an aggrieved party when such registration is refused is to approach the Magistrate. The Court pointed to the provisions under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which empower the Magistrate to order an investigation if the police fail to act. Specifically, under Section 175(3) of BNSS, corresponding to Section 156(3) of the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has the authority to direct investigation after examining the complaint.
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which laid down that when an effective alternative remedy exists, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable for seeking directions to register an FIR. The High Court stressed that individuals must follow the statutory scheme, which requires approaching the Magistrate rather than directly invoking writ jurisdiction. It further held that judgments like Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P., which mandated registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offences, cannot be interpreted to mean that High Courts can bypass statutory remedies and issue writs of mandamus in every case of alleged police inaction.
The Court also underscored that the writ jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and not intended to replace ordinary remedies provided under law. It noted that the Magistrate is vested with adequate powers not only to direct registration of FIR but also to ensure a fair investigation. Therefore, the appropriate and effective remedy for an aggrieved party lies before the Magistrate.
In its decision, the High Court made it clear that entertaining writ petitions in such situations would undermine the statutory framework and flood the writ courts with matters that could be resolved before the Magistrates. The Court directed the petitioner to pursue the available legal remedy of filing a complaint before the concerned Magistrate.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court reaffirming the principle that extraordinary writs cannot be invoked to compel FIR registration when the law provides a clear and effective mechanism through the Magistrate. This ruling strengthens the judicial stance that statutory remedies must be exhausted before invoking the writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.