Kranti Shrihari Wable v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2025:BHC-AUG:24429-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 4 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.969 OF 2025 Kranti w/o Shrihari Wable, Age 35 yrs., Occ. Household, R/o Umra, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.

At present r/o Babhulgaon, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli.

... Petitioner ... Versus ...

The State of Maharashtra Through Superintendent of Police, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.

The Police Inspector, Police Station, Goregaon, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.

Shrihari Pandurang Wable, Age 38 yrs., Occ. Doctor, R/o Umra, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.

At present r/o Jijamata Nagar, Near Gayatri Nagar, Hingoli, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli.

... Respondents ...

Mr. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for petitioner Mr. G.A. Kulkarni, APP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE :

08th SEPTEMBER, 2025

ORDER :

( PER : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) .

Heard learned Advocate for petitioner. Present petition has been filed for following relief - "(B) By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be, respondent Nos.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to register a crime against respondent No.3 and initiate departmental inquiry or proceeding against erring police officers as per the complaint of the applicant dated 18.12.2024 and 05.05.2025.

(C) By issuing a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction as the case may be, respondent Nos.1 and 2 may kindly be directed to arrest the accused or proceed as per law against respondent No.3 and other accused and others in Crime No.149/2024 dated 29.04.2024 registered under Section 307, 498-A, 452, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station, Goregaon, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli." It is stated that the complaint was made to the appropriate authority on 18.12.2024 and 05.05.2025 respectively, however, no cognizance has been taken.

We would like to rely on the decision in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of

Uttar Pradesh and others, 2008 (2) SCC 409, wherein it has been observed that - "25.

we have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that the First Information Report has not been registered at a police station and/or an appropriate investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alterating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers and if that is of no avail, by approaching a Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3).

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 ?" A decision in Sakiri Vasu (supra) was then relied in case of T.C. Thangaraj vs. V. Engammal & others [2011 (12) SCC 328], Sudhir

Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others [2016 (6) SCC 227] and M. Subramaniam and others vs. S. Janaki [2020 (16) SCC 728]. Therefore, in view of the specific observations by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we do not take this to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, the petitioner has remedy to approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and we adopt the same view as was adopted in case of M. Subramaniam (supra) and grant liberty to the petitioner to approach learned Magistrate of competent jurisdiction under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. If such application is made, then the concerned Magistrate to decide it on its own merits.

With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. ( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd