Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Jharkhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1583 (JHR)

NAVIN KUMAR BHARTI v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THRUOGH THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY DEPT OF HOME GOVT OF JHARKHAND

W.P.(Cr.)/531/2025 · 2026-03-23

Rongon Mukhopadhyay

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:8105 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W. P. (Cr.) No. 531 of 2025 --- Navin Kumar Bharti … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 3. Senior Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum, Jhakrhand 4. Manika Chandra Bera … … Respondents --- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --- For the Petitioner : M/s. Rajesh Kumar & Rishi Ranjan Vats, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Saurav Mahto, AC to G.P. I --- 2/23.03.2026 Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to G.P. I for the State. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 3 to lodge an FIR against the respondent no. 4 who was the Incharge of Sundernagar Police Station. A further prayer has been made to direct the respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-. In the case of “Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, it has been held as follows: “26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police his first remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 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 -2- 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 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.” In view of the observations made in the aforesaid judgment, I am not inclined to entertain this application which accordingly stands dismissed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) 23rd March 2026 R. Shekhar Cp 3