Disposed¶23

Vinay Lodha v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC6 May 2026W.P.(Cr.)/234/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proper investigation of FIR; alternative remedy doctrine; writ petition vs statutory remedies in criminal matters; Sakiri Vasu (2008) 2 SCC 409; Sections 36, 154(3), 156(3), 200, 482 CrPC; Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case No.30 of 2024; Investigation Officer supervision; High Court of Jharkhand; disposal of writ application.

What did the court decide?

Since an alternative remedy is available to the petitioner, the writ application is disposed of rather than entertained; the passages quoted from Sakiri Vasu (remedies under Sections 36 and 154(3) CrPC before police officers, Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate, or Section 200 CrPC complaint) are relied upon as the basis for that course. ¶23

Vinay Lodha Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

( 2026:JHHC:13557 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 234 of 2026

¶3

-------

¶4

Vinay Lodha, aged about 39 years, son of Shankar Lal Lodha, resident of 1247 Ground Floor, Matkamhatu Chaibasa, P.O. Chaibasa, P.S. Sadar Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶5

…... …. Petitioner (s)

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, P.O. & P.S. Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶9

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, West Singhbhum, Chaibasa, District West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶10

The Officer-in-Charge, Chaibasa Mufassil Police Station, Chaibasa, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶11

The Investigation Officer, Chaibasa Mufassil Police Station, Chaibasa Mufassil, West Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

¶12

Amit Das

¶13

Sheela Shubhdar Shani

¶14

Prabhandhak Swarup Patnayak .…. …. Respondents --------

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶16

-------For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Indranil Bhaduri, S.C.-IV

¶17

Order No. 02/ Dated 06.05.2026

¶18

Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned S.C.-IV.

¶19

In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent No.5 to properly investigate Chaibasa Mufassil P.S. Case No.30 of 2024.

¶20

In the context of the prayer made in this writ application, reference is made to the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 , wherein, it has been held as follows:

¶21

“ 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) CrPC or 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

¶22

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 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 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 this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 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.”

¶23

In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application stands disposed of.

¶24

(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)

¶25

Dated 06/05/2026 BS/-

Vinay Lodha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinay Lodha v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kunal Kumar Alias Kunal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Md. Wasiullah Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arvind Kumar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkumar Nayak Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajkumar Mehta Vs the State of Jharkhand

Binod Pandit Vs the State of Jharkhand