Court Requires Proper FIR Registration for Forgery Complaint

The court held that the police should have registered the FIR based on the petitioner's complaint disclosing a cognizable offence of forgery. However, the High Court could not direct FIR registration under Article 226 as alternative remedies existed. The petitioner was advised to approach the Magistrate court for further action. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the official respondents' inaction in not registering an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint.
2. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the registration of an FIR.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the Official Respondents' Inaction in Not Registering an FIR
The petitioner, an infrastructure company, alleged that the 5th respondent forged a ledger statement to circumvent the Limitation Act, 1963, and filed a case before the NCLT. The petitioner lodged a complaint with the police, which was not registered as an FIR. The police directed the petitioner to approach the NCLT for redressal, citing the matter as sub judice and civil in nature.

The court analyzed the scope of Section 195 of Cr.P.C., which restricts courts from taking cognizance of certain offences unless a complaint is made by the concerned court. The court referenced the Supreme Court's judgment in Iqbal Singh Marwah, which clarified that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) applies only if the offence is committed after the document is produced in court. The court held that the police have the authority to investigate cognizable offences, even if related to court proceedings, as established in State of Punjab v. Raj Singh and M. Narayandas v. State of Karnataka.

The court concluded that the police should have registered the FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint, as it disclosed a cognizable offence of forgery under Section 463 of Cr.P.C. The police's refusal to register the FIR and directing the petitioner to approach the NCLT was deemed unjustified and not in line with the Supreme Court's rulings in Lalita Kumari, which mandates FIR registration if the complaint discloses a cognizable offence.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 to Direct Registration of an FIR
The court examined whether it could direct the police to register an FIR under Article 226. The Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and subsequent cases, such as Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe and M. Subramaniam, held that if a person’s grievance is the non-registration of an FIR, they should first approach the higher police authorities under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., rather than filing a writ petition.

The court noted that the petitioner did not show evidence of approaching higher police authorities as per Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. before filing the writ petition. The court emphasized that the High Court should not ordinarily interfere in such matters when alternative remedies are available.

Conclusion
The court concluded that while the police should have registered an FIR based on the petitioner’s complaint, the High Court could not direct the registration of an FIR in a writ petition due to the availability of alternative remedies. The petitioner was advised to approach the concerned Magistrate court for further action. The writ petition was disposed of with no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed.

---