- (1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that although the complaint lodged with the police authorities discloses cognizable offences, the police authorities have not registered a criminal case. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that it is the statutory duty of the police to register FIR on such complaint. Such duty is laid down in the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2014 2 SCC 1 . Relying on the aforesaid authority, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that breach of such statutory duty ought to be remedied in exercise with jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid report it has been unequivocally laid down that it is the statutory duty of the police to forthwith register FIR in the event a written information lodged with them discloses cognisable offences. However, what is the remedy for breach of such duty did not fall for decision in Lalita Kumari . It is trite law that a judgement is not an authority for a proposition which is neither argued nor decided [See AIR 1980 SC 1707 (para 6), (1997) 1 SCC 203 (para 8)]. Hence, the said report is not an authority for proposition that breach of such statutory duty is remediable only in writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, the statutory provisions under section 156(3) or section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 confer ample power to the Magistrate to entertain an application and direct registration of FIR or to entertain private complaint and take cognizance or of offences punishable in law and proceed under the Code. In view of existence of such alternative statutory remedies, invocation of writ jurisdiction would amount to circumvention of statutory remedies which is wholly unwarranted and impermissible.
(3.) In AIIMS Employees Union Vs. Union of India, 1996 11 SCC 582 , the Apex Court held as follows : "4. When the information is laid with the police but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant is given power under Section 190 read with Section 200 of the Code to lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case the Magistrate after recording evidence finds a prima facie case, instead of issuing process to the accused, he is empowered to direct the police concerned to investigate into the offence under Chapter XII of the Code and to submit a report. If he finds that the complaint does not disclose any offence to take further action, he is empowered to dismiss the complaint under Section 203 of the Code. In case he finds that the complaint/evidence recorded prima facie discloses an offence, he is empowered to take cognizance of the offence and would issue process to the accused. 5. In this case, the petitioner had not adopted either of the procedure provided under the Code. As a consequence, without availing of the above procedure, the petitioner is not entitled to approach the High Court by filing a writ petition and seeking a direction to conduct an investigation by the CBI which is not required to investigate into all or every offence. The High Court, therefore, though for different reasons, was justified in refusing to grant the relief as sought for.";