(1) cri.wp.179.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.179 OF 2026 Smt. Rita @ Rina Nandu Jumnake Vs. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. P. A. Gupta, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A. R. Chutke, APP for respondent Nos.1 to 5/State. Mr. Akshay Sudame, Advocate for respondent Nos.6 to 8. CORAM : URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 05.10.2026 PRONOUNCED ON : 07.10.2026 1. The petitioner seeks direction to respondent Nos.3 to 5 to register a First Information Report on the basis of the petitioner’s complaints dated 13.10.2025, 17.12.2025 and her statement recorded on 24.12.2025 for offences punishable under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and direction for the investigation as well as initiation of the appropriate action against the respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. As per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Tribe Community. She runs a small tea-stall in front of the Tahsil Office, Wani. On 13.10.2025, she lodged a written complaint at Police Station, Wani stating that her son Sahil Nandu Jumnake aged about 30 years works as a helper on a milk vehicle had been assaulted by a police constable Wasim. No 2026:BHC-NAG:13394-DB (2) cri.wp.179.2026 FIR was registered in response to the said complaint, though she has made a complaint on 13.10.2025. After repeated follow up and representations to the Police Station as well as to the superior officers, no action was taken and, therefore, she approached this Court for seeking directions. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. He reiterated the said contentions and submitted that despite the repeated complaints and representations made to the respondent Nos.2 and 3, no action is taken and hence, direction be given to register the FIR against the present respondent Nos.6 to 8. In support of his contention, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798 and submitted that the writ petition is maintainable before this Court. 4. Per contra, learned APP submitted that the statutory remedy is available to the present petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner made various complaints to the higher police officers and FIR is not registered on the basis of her complaint. Undisputedly, the alternate remedy is available with the petitioner to file application under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “Cr.P.C.”) to initiate action against the present respondent Nos.6 to 8. Now, this issue is not res integra. (3) cri.wp.179.2026 6. In Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, the Apex Court has summarized the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternative remedy and held as under: “27. The principles of law which emerge are that: 27.1. The power under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. 27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. 27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged. 27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution in an appropriate case though ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law. 27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion. 27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of fact, the High Court may decide to decline jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the controversy requires the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be interfered with.” (4) cri.wp.179.2026 7. The majority view in the judgment of Constitution Bench in A.V. Venkateswaran, Collector of Customs v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani [1961 SCC OnLine SC 16; AIR 1961 SC 1506.], wherein observed that “We must express our dissent from the reasoning by which the learned judges of the High Court held that the writ petitioner was absolved from the normal obligation to exhaust his statutory remedies before invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. If a petitioner has disabled himself from availing himself of the statutory remedy by his own fault in not doing so within the prescribed time, he cannot certainly be permitted to urge that as a ground for the court dealing with his petition under Article 226 to exercise its discretion in his favour.” 8. This issue is further clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein the Apex Court observed as under: “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned.” 9. Thus, 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) (5) cri.wp.179.2026 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? 10. As we have already observed that the statutory remedy is already available and the Magistrate has wide powers to direct registration of the FIR to ensure a proper investigation and for this purpose Magistrate can monitor the investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly. In the present case, being the special statute is involved the petitioner very well can approach to the Special Judge with a complaint and Special Judge is empowered to give a direction if the primary case is made out to register the offence. 11. It is thus, an alternative remedy is available and, therefore, we have shown our disinclination to entertain the writ petition. 12. We are inclined to refer the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage reported in (2016) 6 SCC 277, wherein by referring the judgment of Sakiri Vasu (supra), the Apex Court held that: “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR (6) cri.wp.179.2026 2008 SC 907], 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. 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.” 13. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that it is not necessary to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the present case, and hence, at the initial stage itself, we dismiss this petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 14. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for seeking direction before the appropriate Court. (RAJ D. WAKODE, J) (URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J) Sarkate Signed by: Mr. A.R. Sarkate Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/10/2026 19:53:46