Writ petitions over police inaction should ordinarily be declined when Magistrate remedies are available.

The petitioner alleged that, at about 10:30 p.m. on 10 April 2026, Dhanya Kumar Upadhyay and Akhilesh Upadhyay attempted to enter her house and fled when she saw them.

She submitted complaints to the Station House Officer, Police Station Sihora, and the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, but alleged that no action was taken.

She sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to decide her representation dated 26 May 2026 concerning criminal action against the named persons.

The State opposed the petition, arguing that she had an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent Magistrate.

Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 seeking action on complaints concerning an alleged offence when the petitioner has not first pursued the available statutory remedies before the Magistrate.

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to approach the competent Magistrate for redress of her grievance.

Article 226 jurisdiction is not ordinarily exercised where an efficacious alternative remedy is available. Under the CrPC, an aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3), then seek an order for investigation under Section 156(3), or file a complaint under Section 200; the corresponding BNSS provisions are Sections 173(4), 175 and 223, respectively.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, establishes that a Magistrate may direct registration of an FIR and proper investigation under Section 156(3), and that a complainant should ordinarily pursue these statutory remedies rather than approach the High Court directly. The Court also relied on Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277; M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011, decided 20 March 2020; Shweta Bhadoriya v. State of M.P., (2017) 1 MPLJ (Cri) 338; and Ashiwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437, regarding the statutory remedies for non-registration of an FIR and the Magistrate’s supervisory role.

The petitioner had approached the police authorities but sought relief directly from the High Court without invoking the remedy available before the competent Magistrate.

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that the Magistrate can consider a request for investigation or a complaint and grant appropriate relief within the statutory framework. Since that alternative remedy remained available, the petitioner’s writ petition was not fit to be entertained.

It granted liberty to approach the competent Magistrate under the applicable provisions of the CrPC or BNSS, as the case may be, if so advised.