The Delhi High Court, hearing a writ petition for designation of public interest, non-registration of FIR, and compensation, allowed the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue alternative remedies under the law, referring to the Supreme Court's directive on hierarchy of remedies.
Petition allowed by liberty to avail remedy under law
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.
$~48
RAVI KUMAR ..... Petitioner Through: Petitioner in person.
versus
SATBIR BEDI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Sanjay Lao, ASC for the State/ R-3. Ms.Sangit Rai, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 12.01.2016
(i) to declare the acts of respondents No.1 and 2 as shown in para 5 at page No.12 and 13 to be ‘without public interest’.
(ii) to issue writ of Mandamus to the respondent No.3 Commissioner (Delhi Police) for registration of FIR u/s 13(1)(d)ii) and 13(1)(d)(iii) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code 1860 against respondent no.1 and 2.
(iii) to issue writ of Mandamus to respondent no.4 for appointment of a public prosecutor for the prosecution of the respondents No.1 and 2 as per Section 3 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
W.P.(CRL) 82/2016
Page 1 of 3
(iv) to direct compensation to the petitioner for violation of his fundamental rights and deprivation of undeniable job opportunity leading to loss of experience, consequential benefits, seniority, apart from mental harassment, financial and economic loss.
“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 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 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative 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 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) before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) 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.”
W.P.(CRL) 82/2016
Page 2 of 3
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
JANUARY 12, 2016 ‘st’
W.P.(CRL) 82/2016
Page 3 of 3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to pursue available remedies under the law for non-registration of FIR.
What procedural remedies exist for a grievance regarding non-registration of FIR before approaching the High Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. and Ors.Referred¶17
(2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
Ravi Kumar
Satbir Bedi
Pratibha Rani
As recorded by the court registry
A constitutional writ petition in a criminal context, most commonly habeas corpus or a challenge to an FIR or detention order.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
