Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10343 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 79 of 2024 Sunita Kumari Gupta, D/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu, R/o Kali Sthan Road, Bangla Mandir, Church Road, Post- G.P.O., P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi-834001 ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Home Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand 3. Director General of Police, Govt. of Jharkhand 4. Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi 5. LRDC, Sadar, Ranchi 6. Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi 7. Officer Incharge, Lower Bazar Police Station, Post- GPO, P.S.- Lower Bazar, Ranchi 8. Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi 9. Additional Administrator, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi 10. Amit Kumar, S/o Sita Ram Sahu, R/o Village + Post + P.S.- Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi- 835219 11. Vivek Kumar, S/o Sita Ram Sahu, R/o Village + Post + P.S.- Ormanjhi, District- Ranchi- 835219 12. Sarla Devi, W/o Navin Kumar, D/o Late Ratan Kumar Gupta, R/o Kali Sthan Road, Bangla Mandir, Church Road, Post- G.P.O., P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi-834001 13. Sumant Kumar, S/o Rajendra Agrawal, R/o Kali Sthan Road, Bangla Mandir, Church Road, Post- G.P.O., P.S.- Lower Bazar, District- Ranchi-834001 ... … Respondents --------- CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY --------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shahid Khan, Adv. For the Resp.-State : A.C. to G.A.-III For the RMC : Mr. Karbir, Adv. --------- 11/10.04.2026 It appears from the office note that the family members of the respondent no. 11 had refused to accept the notice. The same is deemed to be validly served. Heard Mr. Shahid Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC. to G.A.-III for the respondent- State as well as Mr. Karbir, learned counsel for the RMC. The petitioner, in this writ application has Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10343 ) prayed for a direction upon the respondents to protect the life and property of the petitioner and her family members from the anti-social elements and also to institute a First Information Report against the respondent nos. 10 to 13. A further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 and respondent no. 8, to comply with the directions vide Memo No. 1154/ . dated 21.11.2023 issued by the respondent no. 4. Since the grievance with respect to the compliance of the direction issued dated 21.11.2023 by the respondent no. 4 is related to non-institution of the FIR despite the respondents having been approached so, I may refer to the judgment passed in the case of “Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and 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 Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:10343 ) 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 consequently stands disposed of. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.) Dated, the 10th April, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 13 /04/2026