An aggrieved person has to first exhaust alternative remedies available to him/her under law before invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the high court. Even the High Courts do not entertain the writ petition if the aggrieved person has not availed other remedies, more so, such remedies are incorporated in a statute.
Complaining that the police not registering the crime in spite of mandate of the statute and the law declared by the Supreme Court and also tardy progress in investigation into the crime, in arresting the accused and in filing charge-sheet, several persons have directly invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without availing statutorily engrafted redressal mechanism on these aspects. The petitions comprise two category of cases -- one about the grievance against not registering crime on complaints made by them though crime alleged is cognizable and another about the alleged delay in investigation into crime already registered, arrest of the accused and filing of charge-sheet as the case may be.
The counsels appearing for the petitioners contended that in view of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case, it is mandatory for the police to register a crime when cognizable offence is reported and investigate the crime with promptitude. Any delay in investigation would inure to the benefit of accused and would violate right of the victim to get justice against heinous crime. People from lower strata of the society cannot have access to station house officers and such people cannot afford to go to police stations every day. By the time remedy under Section 190 of CrPC (take cognizance of offences by magistrates) is availed, vital piece of evidence may be lost causing irreparable set back to fair investigation. Whenever there is delay, an aggrieved person can invoke the jurisdiction of the HC to bring to the notice of this court grave illegality committed by statutory authority and to seek mandamus to such authority to act as per law.
Alternative remedies
On the other hand, the government pleader submitted that if a person is aggrieved by not registering the crime or delay in conducting investigation, he has to avail appropriate remedy provided by the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and that the high court should not entertain these petitions without availing the said remedy. The present writ petitions are not maintainable and the petitioners have to avail alternative remedies, he added.
After hearing the case and perusing the material on record and various court judgments, Justice P Naveen Rao said that the Constitution bench of Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari’s case has held that once information given to the police discloses commission of cognizable offence, they must register the crime. As per the Apex Court judgment, registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. Preliminary inquiry is to be conducted in the cases which depend on facts and circumstances of each case. The Lalita Kumari case never intended that an aggrieved person should side step statutory scheme of redressal against inaction by the police in registering a crime or in investigating into crime already registered and directly take recourse to extra-ordinary remedy, the judge added.
Tardy progress
The judge said that if the police personnel do not comply with the statutory mandate and the guidelines prescribed in the police manual, it is always open to the aggrieved person to bring to the notice of the superior authorities or to work out the legal remedies. Even if a case is made out on alleged illegal action by statutory authority, which require redressal, ordinarily the writ court does not entertain the writ petition if the aggrieved person has not availed other remedies, more so, such remedies which are incorporated in a statute. However, in a given case, the Court may relax the requirement of availing alternative remedy and entertain the writ petition, the judge noted.
Justice Naveen Rao dismissed the petitions saying that they are not maintainable. The judge made it clear that there is no opinion expressed on the content of complaints made and on delay in investigation.