Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16648 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2376 of 2025 Applicant :- Sandeep Tiwari Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Of Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Surya Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Surya Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. By means of present application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the applicant has assailed the order dated 09.12.2024 passed by Sessions Judge, Gonda thereby rejecting the revision against the order dated 20.02.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. to direct the police to register first information report. 3. As per the application of the applicant, it was stated that on 08.01.2024 by around 11.55 p.m. while the complainant was on duty at the combined parking situated outside Gonda Junction Railway Station, then respondent No. 2, driver of police station - G.R.P., Gonda came in drunken state and asked for Rs. 500/- for liquor . When he refused to give the money then he abused and threatened him and forcibly took him to G.R.P. station and assaulted him with lathi due to which he sustained grievous injuries and forcibly snatched certain money from the complainant. 4. The Chief Judicial Magistrate while considering the application under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. had also called for police report according to which the entire incident was denied and on the other hand it was stated that certain persons were illegally parking their vehicles inside the police station and they were forcibly removed and from the statement recorded by the police, the facts stated by the applicant in his complaint specially the statement of Akash Kanaujia was found to be incorrect. Even other witness named by the complainant did not support the case of the applicant. In the aforesaid circumstances, the revision was rejected. 5. The trial court has duly considered the various legal provisions including the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat Vs. Afroz Mohammad Hasanfatta, 2019 (107) ACC 295 (SC), Amit Kapoor Vs. Ramesh Chander, 2012(9) SCC 460 and other judgments where it has been considered that revisional jurisdiction can be exercised where there is a palpable error and non-compliance with the statutory provisions and the decisions is completely erroneous. The revisional court found that there were sufficient material on record to come to the conclusion that the version of the applicant may not be correct and accordingly denied for registration of the first information report and he found that such decision does not reflect any illegality on the such material. The same grounds were urged before this Court and this Court did not find any infirmity in exercise of discretion by either the Judicial Magistrate or by the Revisional Court. Both the courts above have looked into the complaint as well as police report which was submitted. 6. Apart form the above, this Court finds that in the judgment of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, the court has degraded the practice of interference in such matters by the High Court power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Considering the fact that the applicant has sufficient remedies by filing a complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C, relevant portion 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. For the aforesaid reasons and specially considering the fact that, it is always open for the applicant to file a complaint, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter, accordingly the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 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