Orissa High Court | Writ of Mandamus Cannot Compel Police to Register FIR | Complainant Must First Approach Magistrate
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Chittaranjan Dash, by judgment dated 13 August 2025, held that no direction can be issued by the Court compelling the police to register a First Information Report in the circumstances of the case brought before it. The Court concluded that the petitioner, alleging inaction of the police, was not entitled to a writ of mandamus for registration of an FIR without first exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Bench clarified that the proper recourse for the petitioner is to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a complaint for redressal of grievance. Accordingly, the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to seek remedy before the competent Magistrate.
The petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court seeking a direction for registration of an FIR against certain police officials allegedly involved in an incident dated 16 October 2024. It was alleged that the officials had failed to discharge their statutory duty in registering the complaint filed by the petitioner.
The matter was first taken up on 7 July 2025, when the Court directed the learned counsel for the State to obtain instructions. Pursuant to this, the Inspector-in-Charge (IIC), Binika Police Station, submitted written instructions narrating the circumstances of the incident.
According to the instructions, the petitioner had himself been implicated in Binika P.S. Case No.357 of 2024. It was alleged that the petitioner led a mob that turned violent, obstructed the police in the discharge of their official duties, and attempted to lynch three individuals accused of attempted robbery. The instructions stated that the petitioner had instigated the public against the police, resulting in an attempt to lynch three minor boys who were confined overnight in a clubroom. When the police intervened to rescue the minors, the petitioner and the public allegedly grew more violent and attacked the boys.
The State submitted that the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the police was a counter-blast to the action already taken against him. As the complaint was not registered as an FIR, the petitioner approached the High Court under its writ jurisdiction.
The petitioner, represented by counsel, contended that the refusal to register his complaint amounted to a violation of the law laid down in Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P. and Others, MANU/SC/1166/2013, where the Supreme Court held that registration of FIR in cognizable cases is mandatory. Reliance was also placed on Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Others, 2023 LiveLaw (Guj) 177, reiterating the same principle.
However, the State opposed the plea, contending that the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to direct registration of FIR where alternate remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure exist.
The dispute thus revolved around the maintainability of the writ petition and whether a writ of mandamus could be issued to direct the police to register the complaint as an FIR.
Justice Chittaranjan Dash considered the scope of judicial intervention in directing registration of FIRs. The Court recorded: “The moot question for consideration in the present writ application is with regard to a direction to the Police to register the FIR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aleque Padamsee and Others, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 171, has held that whenever any information is received by the police about the alleged commission of offence which is a cognizable one there is a duty to register the FIR. There can be no dispute on that score. The only question is whether a writ can be issued to the police authorities to register the same.”
The Court cited All India Institute of Medical Sciences v. Union of India, 1996 (11) SCC 582, and Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 7 SCC 768, noting that the remedy available to an aggrieved informant lies before the Magistrate.
The Bench further referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dr. Anjana Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2024: MPHC-JBP:51172, quoting the observations of the Supreme Court in Divine Retreat Centre v. State of Kerala and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 542: “It is altogether a different matter that the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can always issue appropriate directions at the instance of an aggrieved person if the High Court is convinced that the power of investigation has been exercised by an investigating officer mala fide. That power is to be exercised in the rarest of the rare case where a clear case of abuse of power and non-compliance with the provisions falling under Chapter XII of the Code is clearly made out requiring the interference of the High Court. But even in such cases, the High Court cannot direct the police as to how the investigation is to be conducted but can always insist for the observance of process as provided for in the Code.”
The Court held that when no action is taken by the police on information, the complainant’s remedy lies under Sections 190 and 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that a writ petition in such circumstances is not to be entertained.
Further reliance was placed on Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 409, wherein the Supreme Court held: “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... it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the learned Magistrate concerned.”
The Court also quoted from Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Others, (2016) 6 SCC 277: “This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 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.”
Justice Dash noted that entertaining writ petitions for such reliefs would flood the High Courts with matters seeking registration of FIRs and proper investigation. The Bench stressed that Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. does not pertain to entitlement to writ of mandamus for compelling police action without recourse to statutory remedies.
Concluding the matter, the Court categorically stated: “In view of the above discussion and having regard to the fact emerged in the present case, this Court is not inclined to pass any direction to the Police concerned for registration of FIR. The Petitioner may have the liberty to approach the jurisdictional magistrate by way of a complaint for redressal of his grievance, if any. Accordingly, the CRLMP stands disposed of.”
Thus, the Court refused to direct registration of the FIR but left the petitioner at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under the statutory provisions available in law.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. P. K. Mishra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. R. B. Dash, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Dwaru Patra v. State of Odisha and Others
Case Number: CRLMP No.744 of 2025
Bench: Justice Chittaranjan Dash
