SUNIL KANTA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that although the complaint lodged with the police authorities discloses cognizable offences, the police authorities have not registered a criminal case. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that it is the statutory duty of the police to register FIR on such complaint. Such duty is laid down in the ratio of the Constitution Bench in Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2014 2 SCC 1 .

(2.) I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the aforesaid report it has been unequivocally laid down that it is the statutory duty of the police to forthwith register FIR in the event a written information lodged with them discloses cognisable offences. However, what is the remedy for breach of such duty did not fall for decision in Lalita Kumari . It is trite law that a judgement is not an authority for a proposition which is neither argued nor decided [See AIR 1980 SC 1707 (para 6), (1997) 1 SCC 203 (para 8)]. Hence, the said report is not an authority for proposition that breach of such statutory duty is remediable only in writ jurisdiction. On the other hand, the statutory provisions under section 156(3) or section 200 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 confer ample power to the Magistrate to entertain an application and direct registration of FIR or to entertain private complaint and take cognizance or of offences punishable in law and proceed under the Code. In view of existence of such alternative statutory remedies, invocation of writ jurisdiction would amount to circumvention of statutory remedies which is wholly unwarranted and impermissible.

(3.) In AIIMS Employees Union Vs. Union of India, 1996 11 SCC 582 , the Apex Court held as follows :