( 2026:JHHC:20456 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (Cr.) No. 352 of 2026 ------- Bablu Kumar Mahato @ Bablu Kumar, aged about 25 years, S/o Durga Charan Mahato, R/o Village Badhadih, Chiksia, P.O. & P.S. Chas Mu, District Bokaro. …... …. Petitioner (s) Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Director General of Police, Ranchi, Officiating at Police Headquarters, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, District Ranchi. 3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Officiating at Kutchery Chowk, Deputy Para, P.O. & P.S. Ahirtoli, District Ranchi. 4. The City Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Officiating at Kutchery Chowk, Deputy Para, P.O. & P.S. Ahirtoli, District Ranchi. 5. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Hatia, Officiating at Hatia, P.O. & P.S. Hatia, District Ranchi. 6. Ganesh Kumar Yadav, aged about 35 years, son of not known to the petitioner, R/o Village Magarpatta, P.O. Paratanga, P.S. Aango, District Hazaribagh, Officiating at Officer In-Charge, Vidhansabha Thana, P.O. Hatia, P.S. Vidhansabha, District Ranchi. .…. …. Respondents -------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY -------- For the Petitioner(s) : M/s. Diksha Dwivedi, Neha Mehta, Akriti Shree, Advocates For the Respondents : A.C to S.C.-IV Order No. 02/ Dated 10.07.2026 Heard Ms. Diksha Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C to S.C.-IV. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the concerned respondents to register a First Information Report on the basis of a written complaint dated 17.03.2026 against the concerned police officials, including the Deputy S.P., Hatia and Officer In-Charge of Vidhan Sabha Police Station. The petitioner has further prayed for an independent and fair investigation on the allegations made by the petitioner upon the police officials. In the context of the prayer made in this writ application, reference is made to the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein, 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.” In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application stands disposed of with the liberty to avail of the said remedy. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated 10/07/2026 BS/-