Petitioner sought direction to register FIR under Annexure-3. Court dismissed application relying on Supreme Court precedent granting liberty to approach Cr.P.C. remedy instead.
Liberty granted to avail remedy under statute via Cr.P.C.
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.
WPCRL No. 1619 of 2013
05.01.2018 None appears on behalf of the petitioner at the time of call.
Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State is present.
The petitioner files this application seeking for a direction to opposite parties to r
egister the FIR under Annexure-3 series and take immediate legal action against the offending
persons.
Mr. D.K. Pani, learned Addl. Standing counsel appearing for the State submits that in
view of the judgment passed by the apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, (200
8) 39 OCR (SC) 287 since adequate remedy is available in the Cr.P.C., instead of availing the
same, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this application.
In view of the above, this Court disposes of this WPCRL petition granting liberty to t
he petitioner to avail the remedy available under the statute in view the law laid down by the
apex Court in Sakiri Vasu (supra).
Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to remedy under writ jurisdiction when adequate remedy exists under Cr.P.C. in light of Sakiri Vasu.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶3
Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and others, (2008) 39 OCR (SC) 287
Petitioner
State
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Parties & counsel