HIGH COURT OF CHHAJTISGARH. BiLASPUR WHIT PETITJON (Crimjnal) N0.6857/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDiNTS 1 .^- Ram Narayan Dewangan, aged about 75 years, S/o Shri B.R. Dewangan, Resident of Mahamayapara, P.S.Puranibasti, Ralpur, Tah. and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versys State of Chhattjsgarh, Througn Secretary'. ' .Deptt. Of • Home Affairs, Dau Kaiyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur(C.G.) 2 Superintendent of Pollce, District Ralpur(C.G.) 3 Station House Officer, Police Station-CJty . Kotwali, Raipur (C.G.) . 4 Smt. Gopika Rani Devvangan, aged about 29 years, W/o Shri Arun DeVtf'angan, occupatlon ~ Service. R/o House of Klrtanlal Near Bus Stand, At Post- Dongargaon, P.S. & 'Tah. Dongargaon, DIstrict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Presentiy r^slded at Qtr. No.288/B, Rambo School, Samta Coiony, Raipur, Tah. and District Raipur (C.G.) WRnT:PETirSON,UNDER.ART8CLE226.,OFTHE CONSTITUTSON OF I^DIA ApRsarance: IVIr. A.N. Bhakta, Counsel for the petitjoner. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatla, Dy. Government Advocats for the State/respondents 1, 2 & 3. (26.11.2010) SUNILKUiVSAR SiNHA, J. Heard finally with the consent of the parties. Petitioner - Ram Narayan Dewangan has filed this petition for the fojlowing reieifs : 10.1 That the Hon'ble Court be pleased to call the entire records from theauthorities concerned, 2 WRir_PETrTJON,(CriminaO_No.88S»moi,0 10.2 The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue Vsf'rit of mandamus thereby directing the Respondents No. 1 to 3 either to submlt progress report of investigatlon before the Hon'ble High Court or final report U/s 173 of Cr.P.C., as provlded thereln. 10.3 Any other relief, whlch this Hon'bie Court may deem flt and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be awarded. Learned counsel for the petitioner. su&mits that as per information received by the petitioner, after reporting the matter by the petitioner to the concemed Poiice Station on 09.07.2010, even the Flrst Information Report has notbeen registered tlll date. He prays for issuance of necessary directions in this regard. In Sakirs yssu-Vs-State oftlttar Pradesh f2W8)2 Sypreme Covrt Cases 4(?@. the Supreme Court held vide paras 26, 27 & 28 as foiiows : 26. If a person has a grievance that hls FiR has not been registered by the Police Statlon his first remedy Is to approach the Superintendent of Police u/s 154(3) Cr.PC or Qther police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Supenntendent of Police or the officerreferred to in section 36 hls gnevance sttll persists, then he can approach a IVIagsstrate under Sectlon 156(3) Cr.PC instead ot rushing to the High Court by way of a wnt petltion or a petltion under section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under section 200 Cr.PC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitsons be entertained when there are so many aftemative remedies ? I- WRIT PETmON (Cnminall No.6857/2010 27. Aswe have already observed above, the Maglstrate has very wlde powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himseif). The Hlgh Court should discourage the practice of fiSing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.PC simpiy because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been reglstered by the Police, or after being reglstered, proper investigation has not been done by the pollce: For this grievance, the remedy lies under sections 36 & 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail; under-Section 156(3) Cr.PC betore the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 Cr.PC and not by filing a wrlt petitlon or a petition under Sectton 482 Cr.PC. 28. It is true that 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 Courtshouid not ordinariiy interfere. in view of the above discussion, 1 am not inciined to entertain this writ petition for issuance of a writ to the Pollce authoritles to reglsterthe FIR. The writ petltion; therefore, is ilabie to be dismissed and is dlsmjssed summarily. However, the petitloner shall be at liberty to avaij the other apprQpriate remedles in accordance with law. With the above observation/direction, thls petition stands finalty disposed of at the motion stage itself. ^"s Sinlna ^^