The Court dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 as not maintainable. It held that statutory recourse under Cr.P.C. must be exhausted before approaching the High Court for registration of FIR based on a cognizable offence complaint.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Writ Petition No.15690 of 2020
ORDER :
The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the report lodged by her before the police in Spandana programme is not considered and registered as F.I.R. and the same is not investigated.
2
of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh1 and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable.
5. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not
maintainable. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
________________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date:02.09.2021. cs
1 (2014) 2 SCC 1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable when police fail to register an FIR on the basis of a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence.
Whether the aggrieved person must exhaust remedies under Cr.P.C. before filing a writ petition for registration of an FIR.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar PradeshReferred¶10
Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Petitioner
Home Dept. Rep.
Cheekati Manavendranath Roy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
