JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Heard Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Doley, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent no. 1; Mr. S.S. Roy, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 2 – 6; and Mr. A.U. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8. 2. In this writ petition, one of the grievances raised by the petitioner is that at the time of institution of the writ petition, there had been continuous harassments through different means to the petitioner, and the family of the petitioner, which harassments, according to the petitioner were meted out at the instance of the respondent no. 8, who was then a Member of Legislative Assembly [MLA]. The petitioner has stated that a number of complaints in the form of First Information Reports [FIRs] were lodged before the Police. 3. A reference of the complaints lodged by the petitioner is made in the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent no. 6, filed on 16.09.2024, in the following manner : - 4. It was the further grievance of the petitioner that the investigation in the afore-mentioned cases are being carried out by Police in tardy manner reflecting a lackadaisical attitude. 5. From the above Table, it is noticed that on the basis of the FIRs, a number of cases – both FIR cases and non- FIR cases – had been registered at Lumding Police Station at the instance of the petitioner. It is not known whether the investigation of the case, Lumding Police Station Case no. 131/2023 has been completed in the meantime or not. Be that as it may. If the petitioner has any grievance as regards the manner in which the investigation in the afore-stated case is being carried out, the petitioner has appropriate and adequate remedy under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita [BNSS], 2025 [previously, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]. 6. From the scheme contained in the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘the Code’ or ‘CrPC.’, for short] [since repealed], more particularly, Section 154 and Section 156 thereto, it was settled that if a person had a grievance that the Officer In-Charge of the concerned Police Station was not registering his/her FIR under Section 154[1], CrPC, then he/she could approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154 [3] CrPC by an application in writing. If that did not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR was not registered till then or that even after registering it, no proper investigation had been conducted, it was open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156[3], CrPC before the jurisdictional Magistrate. If an application under Section 156[3], CrPC was filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had the authority and jurisdiction to direct that the FIR be registered and also, on reaching satisfaction, to direct that a proper investigation be made in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation had been made. The Magistrate under the said provision also had the authority and jurisdiction to monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation. 7. Section 156, CrPC reads as under :- 156. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case – [1] Any officer in charge of a police station may, without the order of a Magistrate, investigate any cognnizable case which a Court having jurisdiction over the local area within the limits of such station would have power to inquire into or try under the provisions of Chapter XIII. [2] No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate. [3] Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned. 8. It has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , [2008] 2 SCC 409 , that the Magistrate had very wide powers under Section 156[3] 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]. It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, CrPC simply because a person had a grievance that his/her FIR had not been registered by the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation had not been done by the police. It has been observed that the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or a petition under Section 482, CrPC simply because a person had a grievance that his/her FIR had not been registered by the Police, or after being registered, proper investigation had not been done by the police. For this kind of grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36, CrPC and Section 154[3], CrPC before the Police Officers concerned at first, 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. It has been observed that an alternative remedy would not be an absolute bar to prefer the writ petition but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere. 9. It has been observed as settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sakiri Vasu [supra] that there was an implied power in the Magistrate under Section 156[3], CrPC to order registration of a criminal offence and/or to direct the Officer In-Charge of the concerned Police Station to hold a proper investigation and take all such necessary steps that might be necessary for ensuring a proper investigation including monitoring of the same. 10. It is also apt to refer to the following observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Sudhir Bhaskarrao vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage , reported in [2016] 6 SCC 277 , :- 2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3] CrPC. If such an application under Section 156[3] CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156[3], CrPC and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first information report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation. 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The Magistrate concerned is directed to ensure proper investigation into the alleged offence under Section 156[3], CrPC and if he deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the SSP/SP concerned a change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself investigate [as investigation is the job of the police]. Parties may produce any material they wish before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Magistrate shall be uninfluenced by any observation in the impugned order of the High Court. 11. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘the BNSS’, for short]. The provisions contained in Section 175, BNSS is akin to the provisions contained in Section 156, CrPC. 12. Section 173 [4] and Section 175 [3] of the BNSS read as under :- 173. 11. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has since been replaced by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [‘the BNSS’, for short]. The provisions contained in Section 175, BNSS is akin to the provisions contained in Section 156, CrPC. 12. Section 173 [4] and Section 175 [3] of the BNSS read as under :- 173. Information in cognizable cases – [1] * * * * * * * * * [2] * * * * * * * * * [3] * * * * * * * * * [4] Any person aggrieved by a refusal on the part of an officer in charge of a police station to record the information referred to in sub-section [1], may send the substance of such information, in writing and by post, to the Superintendent of Police concerned who, if satisfied that such information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, shall either investigate the case himself or direct an investigation to be made by any police officer subordinate to him, in the manner provided by this Sanhita, and such officer shall have all the powers of an officer in charge of the police station in relation to that offence failing which such aggrieved person may make an application to the Magistrate. 175. Police Officer’s power to investigate cognizable case - [1] * * * * * * * * * [2] * * * * * * * * * [3] Any Magistrate empowered under Section 210 may, after considering the application supported by an affidavit made under sub-section [4] of Section 173, and after making such inquiry as he thinks necessary and submission made in this regard by the police officer, order such an investigation as above-mentioned. [4] * * * * * * * * * 13. In view of such settled position of law and the fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court is not of the considered view that there is necessity to proceed further with the writ prayer with regard to the petitioner’s contention regarding improper investigation. It is observed that the petitioner has the liberty to avail the remedy under Section 173[4] read with Section 175, BNSS to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by following the procedure laid down in those provisions. It is observed that the petitioner has the liberty to avail the remedy under Section 173[4] read with Section 175, BNSS to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by following the procedure laid down in those provisions. The petitioner is also at liberty to produce any supporting material with regard to the claim that proper investigation is not being done in connection with Golaghat Police Station Case no.64/2025. 14. The other relief sought for by the petitioner is in the form of a direction to the State respondents to provide police protection to the petitioner and his family members. In this connection, a detail report dated 02.02.2024 from the respondent no. 6 was placed before the Court through the learned State Counsel. Taking note of the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the State Counsel to the effect that no subsequent incident has been reported till date, this Court is of the considered view that no further observation is required to be made with regard to the said relief. It is, however, observed that in the event there arises any cause of action in future for the petitioner to seek Police protection in view of any threat perception of serious nature, the petitioner would be at liberty to seek recourse, as permissible under the law. 15. With the observations made above, the writ petition is disposed of.