Court disposed of a petition challenging non-registration of an FIR. Relying on Sakiri Vasu, it held the petitioner must first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) or Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Petition disposed with liberty to file a complaint case.
Petition disposed; liberty granted to file a complaint case.
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.
CRLMP No.1431 of 2017
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
The grievance of the petitioner is that though he has lodged an F.I.R., but the same has not been registered.
In the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , (2008) 2 SCC 409, the apex Court held that 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.
In view of the same, the petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a complaint case.
Dr.A.K.Rath,J.
bkb
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a challenge to non-registration of FIR should be routed through police or judicial mechanisms under Cr.P.C. before approaching the High Court.
What remedies are available to a petitioner whose FIR has not been registered by the police station.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and othersRelied on¶5
(2008) 2 SCC 409 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
State
Dr. A.K. Rath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
