^ •{Q^\^ 4. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cr.lNo. 745 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS G. Kedari, s/o Late G. Jogulu, aged about 58 years, r/o Block-4/A, Street 27, Sector 4, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G). Vs. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G). 2, Superintendent of Police, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G). 3. Station House Officer, Police Station Baloda Bazar, District Raipur (C.G). WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Appearance: Mr. F. S. Khare, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate, for the State/respondents on advance copy. ORAL ORDER (M.02.2010) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J, Heard. Petitioner G. Kedari has filed this petition for issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to investigate the incident leading to death of his son namely G. Prasada Rao as according to the petitioner his son was murdered by somebody. Mr.F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after recovery of the dead body of the deceased, the Police has only done Panchnama and no proper investigation is being conducted by '^ f W.P ('CrtNo.745/2010 them. He further submits that even the First Information Report has not been registered. His submission is that in fact the death of the petitioner's son was homicidal, therefore, the FIR should have been registered by the concerned police station and necessary investigation would have been conducted by them. In Sakiri Vcisu - Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 the Apex Court held vide paras 26, 27 & 28 as follows: <(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 u/s 154(3) CrPCor 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 altern^tive remedies ? 27. 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 CrPC 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 L W.P ('CryNo.745/2010 this grievance, the remedy lies under sections 36 8& 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. 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 Court should not ordinarily interfere/' In view of the above discussion, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition for issuance of a writ to the Police authorities either to register the FIR or to investigate the matter in a particular manner. The writ petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed summarily. However, the petitionei^ shall be at liberty to avail the other appropriate remedies in accordance with law. With the above observation/direction, the petition stands finally disposed of at the motion stage itself. Sunil Kumar Sinha judge /Rao/