( 2026:JHHC:12061 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 321 of 2024 ------- M/s. Narsingh Iron Steel Pvt. Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act, having its Registered Office and Unit at Plot No.1/A-84(P), Bokaro Industrial Area, P.O. & P.S. Balidih, B.S.City, District Bokaro, through its Director Vikram Kumar Bhaduriya, B.S.City, Bokaro. …... …. Petitioner(s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro. 3. Regional Director, Jharkhand Industrial Area Development Authority, Bokaro. 4. Punjab National Bank, Sector-4 Branch, B.S. City, Bokaro through its Branch Manager. .…. …. Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY -------- For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Gaurav Raj, A.C to AAG-II For the respondent No.4 : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate -------- 08/ Dated 23.04.2026 Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Raj, learned A.C to AAG-II and Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent No. 2 or respondent No.4 to immediately lodge an F.I.R relating to theft of assets and properties, estimated value of Rs. 3.5 crores approximately from the premises of the petitioner company, situated at Plot No.1/A-84, BIADA (now JIADA), Bokaro, the physical possession of which however, was taken over by the respondent No.4 -Bank. 3. At the outset, Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits while referring to a letter of the bank, that the premises have not been taken over and in fact, since the stock was found nil, the complaint was instituted. 4. It seems from the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with respect to the theft of the articles in his factory premises, no First Information Report has been instituted, despite the concerned authority being approached for the same. 5. In the context of the aforesaid prayer, reference may be made to the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, in which, it has been held as follows: “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.” 6. In view of the remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated 23/04/2026 BS/- Uploaded