Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16564 Court No. - 12 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 831 of 2025 Appellant :- Janki Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko And And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vishwesh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Vishwesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for appellant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of the present appeal filed under Section 14A(1) of SC/ST Act, the appellant has assailed the order dated 05.02.2025 assailed by Special Judge SC/ST Act / Apr Session Judge Lakhimpur Khiri in Criminal Misc. Case No. 444/2024 under Section - 173(4) of B.N.S.S.-2023 (Janki Vs. Rahul Chaddha & & Others), P.s. Mohammadi, District Khiri. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the appellant has initially moved an application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S.-2023 seeking to register a F.I.R. against the private respondents in relation to an incident which occurred on 01.11.2024 at about 8.30 p.m. It has been stated that respondents along with 20 t0 25 other people were armed with weapons and Lathi and attacked the family members of the appellant and they forcibly took the appellant and mistreated her. The appellant write to lodge a F.I.R. but the same was not registered and consequently has moved an appropriate application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. 4. The Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act had called for police report. From the police report, where it has been stated that there is a pre-existing dispute between the appellant and private respondents with relation to a disputed property and also that the brother and father of the appellant are history sheeter and accused in Case Crime No. 435A & 434A. It is in the aforesaid circumstances, the application was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that a cognizable offence was duly indicated in the complaint preferred by the appellant and accordingly the Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act was mandated to direct the police to conduct the investigation and register the first information report . 6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand has submitted that present petition is akin to proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and the grievances of the petitioner is that the application for registration of F.I.R. has been rejected. He has submitted that this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 where the Supreme Court was of the view that there are various provisions existing other than seeking a direction to the Magistrate to registered a F.I.R. and certainly the appellant has a remedy of filing a complaint instead of seeking a direction to registered a first information report.Relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment quoted as under:- "26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to in Section 36 CrPC. If despite approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? 27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose he can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly (though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police. For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) before the police officers concerned, and if that is of no avail, under Section 156(3) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC." 7. Accordingly, in such a situation the courts should restrain themselves from entertaining such applications. It was further discussed that it is a power to direct the police to register a F.I.R. is a discretionary remedy looking into the complaint made by the complainant and in case the trial court is of the opinion that no such directions can be issued then the applicant has remedy of filing a criminal complaint. 8. From the perusal of the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, this Court finds that trial court has looked into all aspect of the matter including the criminal history of the father and brother of the appellant and also has perused the police report. It was further recorded that civil dispute is already pending between the parties and in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order rejecting the application of the appellant. Apart from the above, this Court finds that the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu (Supra) clearly applies to the fact of present case. 9. For the aforesaid reasons this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter, accordingly present appeal stands dismissed. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 24.3.2025 Ravi/ Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench