THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33725 OF 2011 ORDER: The action of respondent Nos.1 to 4, in not registering the petitioners’ complaint dated 13.12.2011 against respondent Nos.5 and 6 as required under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), is questioned in this Writ Petition as being arbitrary, illegal and void. Petitioners, two in number, are the retired Circle Inspector of Police, and the retired officer of Indian Air Lines respectively. It is their case that their fathers had purchased the subject lands as early as in the year 1930; subsequent to partition they were in possession of the subject lands; their sisters filed O.S.No.644 of 1981 before the I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for cancellation of the “marriage settlement deed” said to have been executed in favour of Smt. P. Laxmi Bai (wife of the brother of the second petitioner herein); the Learned I Assistant Judge had cancelled the “marriage settlement deed” by his judgment and decree dated 18.07.1988; the appeal filed thereagainst in A.S.No.216 of 1988 was allowed vide judgment dated 22.02.1991; thereafter Smt. P. Laxmi Bai filed O.S.No.981 of 1982 before the III Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for declaration of title and recovery of possession; the said Suit was decreed; and the Execution Petition filed thereagainst was dismissed. The civil litigation between the petitioners on the one hand, and respondent Nos.5 and 6 on the other is narrated in detail in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. It is wholly unnecessary for this Court to go into those allegations since the only grievance of the petitioners is the failure on the part of the fourth respondent to register the complaint filed by the petitioners on 13.12.2011, though Section 154 Cr.P.C. required them to do so. Learned Counsel for the petitioners would submit that while the petitioners, no doubt, have a remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C., this Court is not denuded of jurisdiction to entertain the Writ Petition; in matters such as the present one it would be wholly inequitable if this Court were to relegate the petitioners to the remedy under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.; and a mandamus should be issued by this Court directing the fourth respondent to register the complaint, and cause investigation into the matter. As held by the Supreme Court, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others[1], the petitioners have an effective remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., whereunder the Magistrate concerned has not only the power to order registration of an offence, but also to direct the officer incharge of the concerned police station to hold proper investigation and, if need be, to monitor the investigation, if any, being carried on. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioners, I consider it wholly inappropriate to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Leaving it open to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J December 21, 2011 MD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.33725 OF 2011 December 21, 2011 MD [1] (2008) 2 SCC 409