BANSIDHAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these criminal writ applications involve common question of law and, therefore they are taken up together. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties in the said cases as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel were heard.

(2.) THE prayer in all the writ applications are different but since they involve a common question, they have been tagged together.

(3.) THIS decision was again taken note of by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Singh v. State of U.P. reported in 2006 A.I.R. SCW 3230 and it was held that the writ application is not maintainable and the informant can approach the Magistrate by way of filing a complaint. The learned Counsel for the petitioners however, relied upon another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) and Ors. reported in : 2006CriLJ1622 and submitted that Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory and the police officer concerned is duty bound to register the case on receiving information disclosing cognizable offence. When such police officer fails to do such duty, a writ application is maintainable for a direction to such police officer to register the case provided the information discloses cognizable offence. In such event, the question as to whether an alternative remedy is available to the informant or not becomes irrelevant.