THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33492 OF 2011 ORDER: The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.1 to 4 were not registering her complaint against respondent Nos.5 to 8, under Sections 307, 354, 352, 447, 448, 506 (2) and 509 read with 34 I.P.C., though she was assaulted by respondent Nos.5 to 8. The petitioner claims to be the second wife of the fifth respondent. Her grievance is that the fifth respondent’s legally wedded wife (sixth respondent), and her family members, had physically assaulted her; they were demanding that she transfer land of an extent exceeding Ac.1-00 in the name of the sixth respondent; and her complaint has not even been registered much less been investigated into. As held by the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the petitioner has an effective remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), whereunder the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of an offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation, if any, being carried on. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, I consider it wholly inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J December 20, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33492 OF 2011 December 20, 2011 MD [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409