Writ petition for registration of FIR is not maintainable when alternative remedy under CrPC/BNSS exists.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a mandamus to compel police authorities (Respondents No. 2 to 4) to investigate alleged fraud committed by private respondents (No. 5 to 9) regarding his land, which was acquired by S.E.C.L.

The petitioner claimed that despite multiple complaints regarding the denial of employment and compensation due to this fraud, the police failed to act.

The respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner failed to exhaust alternative efficacious remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for the registration of an FIR or investigation when alternative remedies under the Cr.P.C. have not been exhausted.

The court applied the principle of "alternative efficacious remedy," relying significantly on the Supreme Court precedents of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Others (2008).

If the police fail to register an FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., the aggrieved party must first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C., and subsequently the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (2020) establishes that High Courts should discourage Article 226 petitions for FIR registration.

The Court also referenced the Division Bench ruling in Shweta Bhadoriya v. State of M.P. & Ors. (2017), which reaffirms that High Courts should discourage Article 226 petitions for FIR registration.

The Court reasoned that the Magistrate possesses "very wide powers" under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order the registration of an FIR, direct a proper investigation, and monitor said investigation to ensure it is done satisfactorily.

It noted that while Article 226 is not absolutely barred by an alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere if a statutory remedy exists.

The Court observed that the petitioner "rushed to this Court" without utilizing the specific procedural safeguards provided under the Cr.P.C. (or the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita/B.N.S.S.) for addressing police inaction.

By entertaining such petitions, the High Courts would be "flooded" and unable to perform other judicial work.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the competent Magistrate under the provisions of the Cr.P.C. or B.N.S.S. for the redressal of his grievances.