Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6) Placing reliance on the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P.4, wherein, while interpreting Section 154 Cr.P.C. and dealing with the scope of the said Section, the Apex Court held that when a report was lodged with the Police disclosing commission of a cognizable offence that it is mandatory on the part of the police to register F.I.R. and to investigate the same, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as the report that was lodged by the 4 (2014) 2 SCC 1 CMR,J.

CMR,J.

disclosed commission of a cognizable offence, that the party can approach the High Court and seek direction to the police to register the F.I.R. He would submit that, in fact, in the said situation, the remedy of the aggrieved person is by way of exhausting various other remedies provided under Cr.P.C. According to him, the aggrieved party has to either send report to the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or can file a private complaint under Section 190 r/w. Section 200 Cr.P.C. and without availing the said remedies, which are available to the aggrieved person, that he cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to police to register F.I.R. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu1 and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe2.

20) Apropos the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the police with whom the report was lodged have no territorial jurisdiction to register the F.I.R. that the said police have to register a Zero F.I.R. and then transfer the said F.I.R. to the concerned police station having territorial jurisdiction to investigate the same is concerned, the said direction also cannot be given in a writ petition in view of the settled law that the writ petition itself is not maintainable seeking direction to the police to register the F.I.R. Even to seek the said direction to register Zero F.I.R., the petitioner can as well approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Therefore, when he got an efficacious remedy to seek the said direction, he cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even if the remedy of approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. is exhausted and when there is no response from the Superintendent of Police, then also, the aggrieved person has to approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and seek direction to register the F.I.R. and to investigate the same. The said legal position is also clearly explained in Sakiri Vasu1 case by the Apex Court.

25) The Delhi High Court in another case, in Neelu Shrivastava v. State13, after considering the import of Section 154 Cr.P.C. and the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari4 case, held at para.14 of the judgment as follows:

"14. From a combined reading of the provision and the precedents, it can be stated that the only difference between 'FIR' 13 Judgment, dt.30.11.2021, in WP (Crl) No.481 of 2020 of Delhi High Court.