W.P.(CRL)/989/2015 of SANDHYA & ANR Vs THE STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+W.P.(CRL) 989/2015SANDHYA & ANR..... Petitioners

Through:Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv.versus

THE STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI

& ORS

..... Respondents

Through:SI Raj Pal, P.S. Uttam Nagar.Mr. Harsh Sinha, Adv. for R-5.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R R23.02.2017

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,

petitioner seeks registration of FIR.

In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 907,Supreme Court has held as under:-

“26. If person has grievance that his FIR has notbeen registered by the police station his first remedyis to approach the Superintendent of Police underSection 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referredto in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite approaching theSuperintendent of Police or the officer referred to inSection 36 his grievance still persists, then he canapproach Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.instead of rushing to the High Court by way of writpetition or petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.Moreover he has further remedy of filing criminalcomplaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why thenshould writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be

entertained when there are so many alternativeremedies?”

Petitioner has relied on Central Bureau of Investigation vs. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 333 and Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. &

Ors. 2014 (1) JCC 1. These judgments, to my mind, are of no help to thepetitioners, as the question involved therein was totally different, inasmuchas it was not in the context of powers of Magistrate under Section 156(3)Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writpetition and the same is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

FEBRUARY 23, 2017ga