Jharkhand High Court
W.P.(Cr.)/458/2026 of YASHODA KUMARI MACHHUA Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND on 6 November 2026
Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:32649 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(Cr.) No. 458 of 2026 Yashoda Kumari Machhua, wife of Bajrang Machhuwa, resident of DIG Ground, RMCH, Bariyatu, Ranchi ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Superintendent of Police, Ranchi 3. The
Neutral Citation No. ( 2026:JHHC:32649 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 458 of 2026
Yashoda Kumari Machhua, wife of Bajrang Machhuwa, resident of DIG Ground, RMCH, Bariyatu, Ranchi
...
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, Ranchi
3. The Police Station Office, Bariyatu
4. Rafiya Praveen wife of Imtiyaz Ahmad, Purani Ranchi, Abdul Karim Lane, Ranchi
… Respondents
--- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Krishna Prajapati, Advocate
For the State
: AC to GA-III
---
Order No. 02
Dated 6th November, 2026
Heard the learned counsel for the respective sides.
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents No. 2 and 3 to register the First Information Report on the application of the petitioner dated 18.03.2026.
In the context of the prayer made in this writ petition by the petitioner, reference may be 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, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application which accordingly stands disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to avail of the alternative remedy.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY,J.) 6.11.2026 MK
Page-2