Jharkhand High Court
W.P.(Cr.)/444/2026 of SUKHRAM TIRKEY Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPT. OF HOME, GOVT. OF JHARKHAND on 6 November 2026
No. ( 2026:JHHC:32652 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 444 of 2026 Sukhram Tirkey ... … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi 2. The Director General of Police,
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:32652 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 444 of 2026
Sukhram Tirkey
... … 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 through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home Government of Jharkhand, Dhurwa, Ranchi
2. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand
3. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi, Jharkhand
4. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Dhurwa, Ranchi
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Tupudana, Hardag, Ranchi, Jharkhand
6. Anil Kachhap
7. Smt. Soni Kunkal
... … Respondents
---------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------- For the Petitioner : Ms. Karishma Kumari, Adv. For the Resp.-State : A.A.G.-III
---------
02/06.11.2026 Heard Ms. Karishma Kumari, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.A.G.-III for the respondent- State.
In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for a direction upon the respondent no. 5 to register a First Information Report on the application dated 24.06.2026.
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 alternative remedy available to the petitioner, this writ application consequently stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to avail of the said remedy.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
Dated, the 6th November, 2026 A. Sanga/- Uploaded on 06 /11/2026
-2-