Mandamus cannot compel FIR registration against police officers absent material indicating their involvement.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to register a crime against the police officers alleged to have assisted in harvesting the crop.

The court held

The Court held that the petitioners had not established a basis for mandamus directing registration of a crime against the police officers.

It also directed

It rejected the writ petition as devoid of merit, while preserving the petitioners’ option to file a private complaint in accordance with law.

01Facts

Smt. Devamma sued the petitioners and others for a permanent injunction concerning agricultural land.

The trial court granted her a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the property

p. 5

The petitioners alleged that Devamma, with police assistance, used the injunction to harvest their crop.

p. 5

The police registered Crime No. 36/2020 against Devamma and others, but not against the police officers

p. 5

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the police to register a crime against the officers, relying on their complaints and a later representation to the Superintendent of Police.

pp. 2–3, 6

The State produced an enquiry report concluding that the officers had visited the site but had no role in the harvesting

p. 6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Court should issue a writ of mandamus directing the police to register a crime against the police officers alleged to have assisted in harvesting the crop.

pp. 2–3, 6–7

ii.2. Whether the material on record, including the enquiry report, established a basis for such a direction.

pp. 6–7

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking mandamus against the police authorities.

p. 2

The Court held that it could not direct the police to register a crime against the officers on the record before it, particularly where the enquiry report found no role on their part; it left the petitioners free to pursue a private complaint in accordance with law.

p. 7

The Court considered M/S. Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. v. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, which address circumstances in which a writ petition may be entertained despite an alternative remedy, but held that those decisions did not assist the petitioners on these facts.

pp. 7–8

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 506 Section 341 Section 504 Section 143 Section 149 Section 147

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ allegation that the officers enabled the harvesting was not supported by material showing their involvement.

pp. 6–7

The enquiry report found that the officers had no role in the incident, and the only item relied on by the petitioners was a photograph of a police jeep at the site.

pp. 6–7

In those circumstances, the Court declined to compel registration of a crime against the officers.

pp. 6–7

It also found the cited alternative-remedy precedents inapplicable, given the enquiry report’s findings.

p. 8