THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO: 13216 of 2010 ORDER: This writ petition has been filed by Kollu Rajulamma assailing the action of the Station House Officer, Tuni Rural Police Station, the second respondents herein, in not registering crime basing on her complaints dated 29.04.2010 and 30.05.2010. The main grievance of the petitioner is that she submitted a complaint alleging that respondents 3 and 4 and their henchmen came to her land and demanded her and her husband to stop the agricultural work, otherwise they will implicate her and her husband in a case under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and that respondents 1 and 2 have not taken any action against the unofficial respondents. Paragraph 10 of the affidavit contains the gist of her complaint made to the S.H.O., Tuni Rural Police Station with regard to the incident alleged to have been taken place on 30.05.2010. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home, appearing for the respondents 1 and 2. It is well settled by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.[1] that if the police fails to take any action on the complaint allegedly presented by the complainant, the complainant is at liberty to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 (3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. Paragrahs 26 to 28 of the cited judgment reads as under. “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) Cr.P.C., or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C., his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of a 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 himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Section 36 and 154(3) Cr.P.C before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C., and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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 Court should not ordinarily interfere.” In view of the limited grievance of the petitioner as to non- consideration of her complaint, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition directing the Station House Officer, Tuni Police Station to take appropriate action basing on the complaint dated 30.05.2010 allegedly filed by the petitioner, in accordance with the provisions of law. With the above observations the Writ Petition is disposed of at the admission stage. _________________________ (B. Seshasayana Reddy, J.) 14th June, 2010 Js. [1] AIR 2008 SC 907