Jharkhand High Court
W.P.(Cr.)/306/2026 of DIPTI KUMARI Vs THE STATEOF JHARKHAND on 28 September 2026
No. ( 2026:JHHC:29145 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 306 of 2026 Dipti Kumari, W/o Vivek Karan & Daughter of Late Ashok Kumar Mallik, R/o House No. 29, Rajeshwari Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Block No. 4, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:29145 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 306 of 2026
Dipti Kumari, W/o Vivek Karan & Daughter of Late Ashok Kumar Mallik, R/o House No. 29, Rajeshwari Bhawan, Shastri Nagar, Block No. 4, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum ... … Petitioner
Versus
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. Sakchi, Jamshedpur, District East Singhbhum.
3. Office-in-Charge, Kadma Police Station, P.O. & P.S.- Kadma Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum
... … Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Adv. For the Respondents : A.C. to G.A.-V
---------
02/28.09.2026 Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to G.A.-V for the respondents.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to ensure fair investigation in connection with Kadma P.S. Case No. 17/2025.
In the context of the prayer made in this writ application reference is made to 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 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 remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application stands disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to avail of the said remedy.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Dated, the 28th September, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 29 /09/2026
-2-