Mandamus Writs Disallowed for FIR Registration; Aggrieved Parties Directed to Approach Police Superintendents or Magistrates
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has reaffirmed the principle that writs of mandamus should not be issued for the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs) when alternative remedies are available under the criminal law framework. The decision, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, highlights the necessity for aggrieved individuals to pursue established statutory avenues before seeking judicial intervention.
The case in question, Abdul Rashid Khan v. State of West Bengal, involved an appeal against a previous order by a single judge which dismissed a petition for mandamus to compel police action on a complaint. The petitioner's grievances stemmed from alleged police inaction in registering an FIR and addressing property disputes with private parties.
The court emphasized that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides clear procedures for aggrieved parties to follow in instances where police fail to register FIRs. Sections 173 and 175 of the Sanhita outline that individuals should first approach the Superintendent of Police or, subsequently, the Magistrate, to seek redress. This approach is aimed at ensuring that the judicial system is not burdened with cases that have statutory remedies available.
Moreover, the court reiterated the position upheld by the Supreme Court and other High Courts that writ petitions should not be entertained when an effective alternative remedy exists, except in cases involving fundamental right violations, breaches of natural justice, jurisdictional errors, or challenges to the vires of legislation.
The judgment also addressed the issue of property disputes, underscoring that police intervention should be limited to maintaining peace and order unless directed otherwise by competent legal authorities.
This decision aligns with precedents set by the Supreme Court and serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s stance on encouraging the exhaustion of statutory remedies. It also underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the separation of powers by ensuring that matters best handled by administrative or lower judicial bodies are not prematurely escalated to higher courts.
The Calcutta High Court's ruling is expected to guide future cases where petitioners seek judicial intervention for police inaction, thereby reinforcing the procedural hierarchy established by law.
Bottom Line:
Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued for lodging FIR or taking consequential action when alternative remedies under criminal law exist.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Sections 173 and 175), Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 6).
Abdul Rashid Khan v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2854195
