IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 23968 of 2009 Between: Konda Nirmala. .. PETITIONER AND The State of A.P., rep. by its Superintendent of Police, Warangal District and another. .....RESPONDENTS ORDER: As the unsocial elements are entering into the house of the petitioner and are threatening her with dire consequences, she approached the police i.e., second respondent herein, and made a complaint on 17.06.2009 requesting him to take necessary action. But, however, no action has been initiated. Hence, she filed the present writ petition seeking a direction from this Court to the respondents to take cognizance of the said complaint, register as a crime and investigate into the matter. This Court cannot direct the respondents herein to register a crime. Whether the said complaint makes out a cognizable offence or not is immaterial. A complaint has to be lodged before the Station House Officer of police station concerned, as provided under Section 154(1) Cr.P.C. and when he does not act on that complaint, it is open for the aggrieved person to approach the Superintendent of Police and give a representation, as provided under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. Despite the said effort, if the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police do not register a crime, then the remedy for the petitioner is to approach a competent Criminal Court and file a complaint as provided under Section 200 Cr.P.C. On the basis of which, the Magistrate concerned can refer the matter to the police as provided under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As and when such a complaint is made and the matter is referred to the police, the police are under obligation to register the crime and investigate into the matter. In fact, in a recent judgment of the Apex Court in SAKIRI VASU v. STATE OF U.P.[1] it was held 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 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 Cr.P.C. 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 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 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 Sections 36 and 154(3) Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers and if that is of no avail under Section 156(2) 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. Following the said judgment of the Apex Court and for the reasons stated therein, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is directed to approach a competent Criminal Court in accordance with law. No costs. __________________________ GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA, J Date:06.11.2009 sj [1] AIR 2008 SC 907