AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa, J
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“….to issue a Writ or Order or a direction more particularly in a nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent Nos. 2 to 4, on the complaint filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent on 21.10.2023, which was sent to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 through registered post with acknowledgment due, as illegal, arbitrary and violation of the Article 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to initiate action basing on the complaint, dated 21.10.2023 and protect the lives and property of the petitioner and his family members and pass such other order or orders…..”.
Heard Sri B. Jaya Prabhakara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nirmal Kumar Yadav, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home for the respondents.
With the consent of learned counsel representing both the parties, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission itself.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit there is imminent threat to the life and property of the petitioner from anti-social and unruling elements, against whom the petitioner presented a complaint to the police. Despite the said compliant, which was sent to the Superintendent of Police through registered post, no crime has been registered against the accused, who are doing Rekki to attack the petitioner,who is an old man of 75 years old. Police did not respond to the complaint presented by the petitioner.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home would submit that the Coordinate Bench of this Court in batch of matters in Writ Petition No.8384 of 2020 of its batch, dated 30.07.2020, after elaborate discussion, held that the Writ Petition is not maintainable, seeking direction to the police to register a case, since there is a clear and efficacious alternative remedy to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate’s Court by filing a complaint is available, as per the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. He further submits that the 3rd respondent received a complaint sent by the petitioner through post, yesterday and they will attend the cause as per law.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Court may pass appropriate order mentioning the same.
It is beneficial to extract the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the Writ Petition referred Supra, is as follows :
“In the opinion of this Court, if there is an effective alternative remedy the writ petition should not be entertained and a mandamus should not be granted. In view of the clear march of law from Lalita Kumari case-1 to Lalita Kumari case-3, the three judge decisions in Aleque Padamsee case (12 supra) and three judge decision in M. Subramaniam case (2 supra) followed by the judgment in Priyanka Srivasthava case (7 supra), this Court is of the firm opinion that as there is a clear and efficacious alternative remedy, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.P. State Bridge Corporation Ltd., and Others v U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh alternative remedy should be raised and decided at the threshold itself.
This Court holds that the Magistrate by virtue of the powers conferred upon him can also go into the questions of fact that have arisen in a given case and can direct the registration of the FIR but can also ensure proper investigation and also monitor the same. This Court opines that the same is a much more efficacious remedy than the Writ Petition.
The preliminary objection is therefore upheld and the writ petitions are rejected with a direction to the petitioners to avail their alternative remedy if they are so advised. No comments are also made on the merits of any of the matters. There shall be no order as to costs.”
In the light of the aforesaid mentioned premises, the Writ Petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy as per law. Meanwhile, in view of the physical threat expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the petitioner is aged about 75 years, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are directed to take appropriate steps to protect the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.