Sandhya & ANR v. The State Of National Capital Territory Of Delhi & ORS

$~20 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 989/2015 SANDHYA & ANR ..... Petitioners Through:

Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv.

versus THE STATE OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ORS ..... Respondents Through:

SI Raj Pal, P.S. Uttam Nagar.

Mr. Harsh Sinha, Adv. for R-5.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

O R D E R

% 23.02.2017 By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks registration of FIR.

In Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 2008 SC 907, Supreme Court has held as under:- "26. 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. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be

entertained when there are so many alternative remedies?"

Petitioner has relied on Central Bureau of Investigation vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2001) 3 SCC 333 and Lalita Kumari vs. Govt. of U.P. & Ors. 2014 (1) JCC 1. These judgments, to my mind, are of no help to the petitioners, as the question involved therein was totally different, inasmuch as it was not in the context of powers of Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

For the foregoing reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition and the same is dismissed.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

FEBRUARY 23, 2017 ga