Patna High Court
Vinay Kumar ThakurversusThe State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Patna.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable as alternative remedies under the Criminal Procedure Code are available, and therefore dismissed the petition.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinay Kumar Thakur, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to register an FIR against several private respondents and to provide protection for his life and property. He alleged that despite multiple applications to the police and superintendent between 2023 and 2024, no action was taken. The Court observed that the petitioner could have approached the territorial Judicial Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code and that alternative remedies under Sections 36, 154(3), 156(3) and 200 CrPC were available. Citing the Supreme Court decision in Sikiri Vasu v. State of U.P., the Court held that a writ petition is not the appropriate remedy when such alternatives exist. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty left to the petitioner to pursue the matter in the appropriate forum.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing police to register an FIR when alternative remedies under the CrPC are available.
- Whether the delay in approaching the High Court bars the writ petition.
- Whether the petitioner must first approach a magistrate before seeking judicial intervention.
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 154(3), 156(3), 200, 36, 482
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- FIR registration
- police inaction
- alternative remedy
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 156(3) CrPC
- Section 200 CrPC
- High Court dismissal
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.70 of 2026
======================================================
Vinay Kumar Thakur Son of Sri Ram Nandan Thakur Resident of Village-
B4, 20/B, New Shivnagar, Forthline, P.O. Gadenaria, Kolkata, West Bengal-
700024.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of
Home Affairs, Patna. Patna
2. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. Bihar
3. The Inspector General of Police, Tirhut Range, Muzaffarur. Bihar
4. The Superintendent of Police, Vaishali, Hajipur, Bihar. Bihar
5. The Officer Incharge, Desari Police Station, Vaishali. Bihar
6. Nishant Thakur Son of Late Upendra Thakur Resident of Village and P.S.-
Desari, District- Vaishali.
7. Pramod Kumar Son of Baleshwar Thakur. Resident of Village- Deshri, P.O.
and P.S.-Deshri, District- Vaishali.
8. Bibha Devi wife of Pramod Thakur. Resident of Village- Deshri, P.O. and
P.S.-Deshri, District- Vaishali.
9. Prabhat Thakur @ Chottu Son of Pramod Thakur. Resident of Village-
Deshri, P.O. and P.S.-Deshri, District- Vaishali.
10. Kumod Thakur Son of Baleshwar Thakur Resident of Village- Deshri, P.O.
and P.S.-Deshri, District- Vaishali.
11. Ahhishekh Thakur Son of Vinod Thakur. Resident of Village- Deshri, P.O.
and P.S.-Deshri, District- Vaishali.
12. Chandan Thakur Son of Siyaram Thakur Resident of Village-Hasanpur,
Oasti, P.S.- Mahua, District- Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Rajnish Kumar Dubey, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Kamlesh Kishore, AC to SC-12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
2/5
2 02-07-2026 The present writ petition has been filed seeking
following relief(s):-
"(A) Issuance of writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the official
respondents with a directions to lodge the
F.I.R. against the accused persons including
Private Respondents who have named in the
written application dated 24.09.2023 and
others to the Officer Incharge, Desari Police
Station, Vaishali, Bihar.
(B) The official respondents further be
directed to give full protection of life and
property of the petitioner from the Private
Respondents who have threatened him for do
so.
(C) The respondents further be directed to
warn the accused persons not to interfere
with the family matters if any and also
Private Respondents be directed not to
interfere with the husband's wife issue if not
raised.
(D) To grant such other relief or reliefs for
which the petitioner entitled to."
02. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner submitted written application on 17.08.2023 and
another application on 21.09.2023 before the Desari Police
Station, Vaishali regarding quarrel and threat extended by the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
3/5
private respondents 6 to 12 but no action has been taken by the
concerned SHO. Copy of the application has also been sent to
Superintendent of Police, Vaishali through speed post on
16.12.2023. Thereafter, a number of complaint/representations
are given by the petitioner as well as his wife before the
Superintendent of Police, Vaishali regarding protection of life
and property of the petitioner and his wife and widow mother-
in-law vide written applications dated 06.02.2024, 07.08.2024
and 18.10.2024 but no action has been taken.
03. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-
respondents seeks time for filing reply/counter affidavit.
04. Perused the record.
05. From perusal of the record, it appears that the
petitioner and the private respondents are relatives and the
private respondents are in-laws of the petitioner. Though the
petitioner has approached the Superintendent of Police, Vaishali
for his grievance, it appears no action has been taken. If the
petitioner has been able to make out a case for registration of the
FIR under cognizable offences, the petitioner ought to have
approached the territorial Judicial Magistrate and without
exercising his alternative remedy which is equally efficacious,
the petitioner has rushed to this Court. It is also pertinent to note
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
4/5
here that the occurrence took place in the year 2023 and the
petitioner has approached this Court only in the year 2026, i.e.,
after much delay. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Sikiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 has observed that
the High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ
petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC simply because FIR
has not been registered by the police, or after being registered,
proper investigation has not been done by the police. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has further observed that the remedy
lies under Sections 36 and 154(3) CrPC 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. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has also noted that though alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well
settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court
should not ordinarily interfere.
06. Therefore, considering the peculiar facts of the
case and availability of alternative and efficacious remedy to the
petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition
and hence, the same is disposed of reserving liberty to the
Patna High Court CR. WJC No.70 of 2026(2) dt.02-07-2026
5/5
petitioner to have recourse of law in appropriate proceeding
before appropriate forum.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
DKS/-
U
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.