JUDGMENT : ARAVIND KUMAR, J. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 07th August 2017, passed in Writ Petition No.106629 of 2017, whereunder learned Single Judge after considering the rival contentions has dismissed the writ petition. 2. Facts in brief, which has lead to filing of this appeal can be crystallized as under: It was alleged by petitioner that on 04.04.2017 at about 11:00 p.m., while he was proceeding in his car along with his 9 months old daughter, a car bearing registration No.KA-25/MA-4386 came in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and attempted to dash against his car with an intention to kill him and his child. Hence, complaint came to be lodged with the Jurisdictional Police, which was not registered though according to petitioner it disclosed cognizable offence. Hence, petitioner sought for a writ of mandamus to Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi to register the complaint and also to initiate necessary action against the alleged erring officer. On the said petition, notice came be issued and respondents appeared and filed their statement of objections, inter alia denying the averments made in the petition and also enclosing the communication/letter submitted by the very same petitioner before the Jurisdictional Police (Annexure-R2) amongst other communications indicating thereunder that letter submitted by petitioner may be accepted. On the basis of complaint lodged by petitioner, Jurisdictional Police are said to have summoned the persons, whom the complainant i.e., the petitioner had named in his complaint and found that there were certain dispute between the parties and an undertaking has been given by those persons stating they would not indulge in either creating any problem or law and order situation. Based on the said undertaking as well as the communication issued by the petitioner, complaint came to be closed. 3. Being aggrieved by closure of his complaint petitioner approached learned Single Judge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking following prayers. “a. It is most Hubly Prayed this Hon’ble Court that, Strict directions may be pleased to issued the respondent Police personnel to register the complaints vide Annexures-A and C. Necessary action may be pleased to taken against concerned Police Respondents No.1 to 5 for having not regisdtering the complaint given by the petitioner. “a. It is most Hubly Prayed this Hon’ble Court that, Strict directions may be pleased to issued the respondent Police personnel to register the complaints vide Annexures-A and C. Necessary action may be pleased to taken against concerned Police Respondents No.1 to 5 for having not regisdtering the complaint given by the petitioner. And take the legal action as per the provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. b. Give protection to petitioner and the petitioners family members. In the interest of justice. c. This Hon’ble Court may give direction to the Director General of Police, Govt. of Karnataka, Nirputunga road, Bengaluru to take legal action vide Annexure-F, and against concerned police officers/ respondents No.1 to 5 for having not registering the complaint given by the petitioner by issuing writ of mandamus Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.” 4. Learned Single Judge by impugned order dated 07.08.2017 dismissed the petition by observing that letter submitted by the petitioner admittedly was not by use of any force and if it were to be so petitioner ought to have taken appropriate action by lodging complaint by he was forced or pressurized to execute such letter. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that remedy available to the petitioner is to invoke Section 200 of Cr.P.C. and so also Sections 154(3), 156(3) and 190 of Cr.P.C. 5. Having heard the petitioner appearing in person, we find his submission with regard to the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the petition is not maintainable on the ground that Section 482 of Cr.P.C. invoked is correct. To put it differently, petitioner has not invoked Section 482 of Cr.P.C., but on the other hand he had invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such said finding recorded by learned Single Judge would not be sustainable. 6. Be that as it may. The fact remains that sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that the jurisdictional Police are not registering the FIR based on his complaint. 6. Be that as it may. The fact remains that sum and substance of the grievance of the petitioner is that the jurisdictional Police are not registering the FIR based on his complaint. The records made available before the learned Single Judge by the learned Government Advocate, which was filed along with the statement of objections disclose that petitioner himself had submitted a letter before the Jurisdictional Police on 05.04.2017, whereunder he had stated to the following effect: “I hereby give undertaking that there respondent/accused are plended me that, they will be give No problem from there side. So, there will be consulting meeting will be at Taj Nagar kindly provide some time for consulting So, I hereby I feel no insecurity from Zuber, Basheer, and others, therefore kindly accept this acceptance letter. Thanking you” 7. Though a plea was raised before the learned Single Judge and reiterated before us that the said letter had been obtained by coercion, we are not impressed by said argument, inasmuch as till date steps have not been taken in that regard by the petitioner. Even otherwise, if such undertaking had been obtained by the Jurisdictional Police from the petitioner either under duress or by coercion, the remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. along with necessary affidavit by reiterating grounds urged in his complaint. However, without resorting to said alternate remedy petitioner cannot be heard to contend that he would be entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. As such petition having been dismissed with this observation of petitioner having alternate remedy cannot be found fault with. Even otherwise, when a complaint is lodged, it would be incumbent upon the jurisdictional Police to register such complaint, if it discloses cognizable offence. At this juncture Smt.Veena Hegde, learned AGA would submit that if any such complaint is lodged by the petitioner in future which would disclose cognizable offence necessarily Jurisdictional Police would register the complaint and investigate the matter and proceed in accordance with law. 8. In the light of afore stated facts and placing the submission of the learned AGA on record, we are of the view that continuation of present appeal would not be called for and we do not find any good grounds made out to continue this appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal stands disposed of, subject to these observations. 8. In the light of afore stated facts and placing the submission of the learned AGA on record, we are of the view that continuation of present appeal would not be called for and we do not find any good grounds made out to continue this appeal. Accordingly, writ appeal stands disposed of, subject to these observations. All pending applications are consigned to records.