Magistrate remedy bars direct writs for FIR registration; Lalita Kumari does not override the Code's statutory route.

Where the Code of Criminal Procedure provides remedies before the Magistrate for police inaction, Article 226 should not ordinarily be used to compel registration of an FIR. The discussion notes that Sections 154, 156(3), 190 and 200 furnish an effective statutory route, and that Lalita Kumari concerns the duty to register cognizable information but does not displace those remedies. It also records that a writ petition may be vulnerable where material facts, such as prior recording of the complainant's statement, are suppressed. The commentary further notes that intra-court appeals were treated as maintainable under the Kerala High Court Act.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an intra-court appeal lay against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction in a criminal matter; (ii) whether, in view of the statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a complainant could bypass the Magistrate and seek a writ of mandamus to compel registration of an FIR, and whether Lalita Kumari displaced those remedies.

Issue (i): Whether an intra-court appeal lay against the judgment rendered by a Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction in a criminal matter.

Analysis: The jurisdictional objection was examined in the light of the Kerala High Court Act and the earlier Division Bench view that the statutory right of appeal is not excluded merely because the Single Judge's order arose in a matter touching criminal jurisdiction. The restriction recognised in the Letters Patent context was held not to control the Kerala High Court Act in the same manner. The earlier Division Bench reasoning, treated as binding, was followed.

Conclusion: The intra-court appeals were maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether, in view of the statutory remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, a complainant could bypass the Magistrate and seek a writ of mandamus to compel registration of an FIR, and whether Lalita Kumari displaced those remedies.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Sections 154, 156(3), 190 and 200 of the Code was held to provide efficacious remedies where the police do not act on a complaint. The Court held that Lalita Kumari dealt with the mandatory duty to register an FIR on receipt of cognizable information and did not decide that a complainant could ignore the Code and invoke Article 226 directly. The settled line of authority requiring recourse to the Magistrate remained undisturbed. As regards one of the writ petitions, suppression of the material fact that the police had already recorded the complainant's statement was also noticed.

Conclusion: The writ petitions were not maintainable in the face of alternative statutory remedies, and the writ relief could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The common judgment of the Single Judge was set aside because the complainants had an efficacious statutory remedy and one petition was also vitiated by suppression of material facts; the writ appeals succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides an effective remedy before the Magistrate for police inaction, Article 226 will not ordinarily be used to compel registration of an FIR, and Lalita Kumari does not override that statutory route.

---