THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO.29081 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to register the complaint lodged by him on 19.10.2011 and 24.10.2011 against the offenders mentioned therein, and to proceed with the same in accordance with law. The Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh[1], observed : “25. 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 CrPC. 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, first under Section 154(3) and Section 36 CrPC before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3). 26. 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) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. 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) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?” As observed in the aforesaid judgment no individual should, ordinarily, be permitted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the Code without exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C). While the remedies under the Cr.P.C. may not bar exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu1 would require this Court, ordinarily, to refrain from exercising its discretion to entertain a Writ Petition questioning the action of the respondents in not registering the complaint as such a relief can as well be sought by way of a petition, before the concerned Magistrate, under Section 156(3) of the Code. Sir V.Srinivas, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would, however, place reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Uppalapati Nirupa Rani v. Koganti Lakshmi[2]. The Division Bench in paragraph 25 of its judgment referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu1, and observed:- “There cannot be any denial that the person accused of an offence is a fundamental right of fair trial. It cannot be achieved without an independent investigation and prosecution which is a linchpin of the criminal justice administration. When High Court discovers that investigation and prosecution lack requisite independence and impartiality, it becomes the duty of the Court to give proper directions. It is in this context that the Court acquires power to direct a Central Agency like CBI or CBCID to investigate the offences. The phrase ‘any Government’ in Article 226 also suggest that the High Court can give direction to a Central Agency for enforcement of fundamental rights by taking up fair and impartial investigation. Indeed in appropriate cases, even the magistrate competent to take cognizance of the offences can direct re-investigation in appropriate situations (See Sakiri Vasu v State of U.P.)” The question whether this Court should, ordinarily, refrain from entertaining a Writ Petition filed for non-registration of complaint, in view of the statutory remedy under Section 156(3) of the Code, did not arise for consideration in Uppalapati Nirupa Rani2. Leaving it open to the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ____________ 14-11-2011 ASP [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409 [2] (2011(1) ALD (CrL.) 907