( 2026:JHHC:19039 ) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 319 of 2026 Basant Paswan S/o Ramu Paswan Aged About 61 years R/o C/o Ramu Paswan, Niche Dhauda Central Saunda, P.O- Sounda P.S- Patratu (Bhurkunda) District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, having its office at Project Bhawan, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagannathpur, District- Ranchi 3. The Superintendent of Police, Ramgarh, having its office at Office of the SP, P.O. and P.S. Ramgarh, District- Ramgarh. 4. The Inspector-In-Charge, Patratu P.S., having its office at Patratu Bhurkunda P.S., P.O. + P.S. Patratu Bhurkunda, District- Ramgarh. 5. The Investigating Officer, in Patratu Bhurkunda P.S. Case No. 77/2025, having its office at Patratu Bhurkunda P.S., P.O. and P.S. Patratu Bhurkunda, District- Ramgarh. 6. Lado S/o Mahaveer Chaudhari Aged About- Not known to Petitioner, R/o Central Saunda Bhurkunda P.O.- Sounda P.S.- Patratu Bhurkunda, District- Ramgarh, Jharkhand. … Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY For the Petitioner : Mr. Rahul Dev, Advocate Mr. Priyanshu Nilesh, Advocate For the State : A.C. to Sr. A.A.G. --- Order No. 02/ Dated: 30th June, 2026 Heard Mr. Rahul Dev, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Sr. A.A.G. 2. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to arrest the Respondent No. 6 and also conduct proper investigation in connection with Patratu (Bhurkunda) P.S. Case No. 77 of 2025. 3. In the context of the aforementioned prayer, reference is made to the case of “Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. & others” reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, the relevant part of which reads 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 ( 2026:JHHC:19039 ) 2 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 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.” 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy for redressal of his grievance, this writ application stands disposed of. (RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 30th June, 2026 Vedanti/-