JUDGMENT : Dr. A.P. Thaker, J. 1. Rule. Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor waives service of notice of rule for respondent-State. 2. By way of present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India read with Sec. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs. (A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to comply with the order dated 5-7-2017 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 4653 of 2017. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to register the F.I.R. upon the complaint dated 16-5-2017 and also to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the erring officers. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to quash the 'Samaj Yadi' dated 30-7-2017 issued by the respondent No. 2. 3. According to the petitioner, he had filed the complaint before the concerned police authority, who has not registered his F.I.R. According to him, pursuant to mat, he had preferred Special Criminal Application No. 4653 of 2017 which came to be disposed of by this Court by directing the respondents to look into the complaint and determine whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. It is the contention of the petitioner that as per the order of this Court, respondent No. 2 was supposed to look into the complaint and determine whether any cognizable offence is made out or not. But instead of determining as to whether any cognizable offence is made out or not, the Police Sub-Inspector has simply issued a 'Samaj Yadi' stating that the matter is pertaining to the civil dispute, and therefore, the applicant should approach disappropriate Civil Court for the appropriate remedy. It is also contended by the petitioner that due to non-compliance of the order of this Court passed in the aforesaid Special Criminal Application, he had moved another application being Misc. Criminal Application No. 21246 of 2017 before this Court, which came to be withdrawn with a liberty to file afresh application. According to him, his application for initiation of criminal proceedings refers to the cognizable offence, and therefore, the F.I.R. ought to have been registered by the concerned police authority, but the police authority has not registered his complaint, whereas, the complaint has been registered on the same facts. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 4. According to him, his application for initiation of criminal proceedings refers to the cognizable offence, and therefore, the F.I.R. ought to have been registered by the concerned police authority, but the police authority has not registered his complaint, whereas, the complaint has been registered on the same facts. He has prayed to allow the present petition. 4. The respondent No. 2-original complainant has filed the affidavit-in-reply wherein he has categorically stated that the matter is pertaining to the civil dispute and the petitioner herein has received the entire consideration amount of sale of the property and due to rise in the price of the land, the intention of the petitioner is to get more money and with this intention, he wants to register the F.I.R: It is also stated that in fact, one F.I.R. came to be lodged by the complainant namely Ratilal Ranchhodbhai Patel against the present petitioner and other persons being C.R. No. I-121 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Secs. 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code wherein it was alleged that the petitioner is in habit of executing the general Power of Attorney in favour of the many persons for the same land. According to him, the dispute is of civil nature and tried to give criminal colour. It is also stated that the preliminary inquiry reveals that no any cognizable offence is committed, and therefore, decision was taken not to register the F.I.R. It is also stated that the petitioner can certainly be moved before the learned Magistrate and filed private complaint under Sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. On all these grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the present petition. 5. Heard Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State at length. Perused the material placed on record. 6. Mr. Nisarg Shah, learned Advocate for the petitioner has vehemently submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has submitted that in a given set of facts, the remedy under the civil as well as criminal law is available to the aggrieved party. He has submitted that the cross-complaint has been registered and on the same facts, an F.I.R. of the present petitioner is not being registered by the police authority. He has submitted that in a given set of facts, the remedy under the civil as well as criminal law is available to the aggrieved party. He has submitted that the cross-complaint has been registered and on the same facts, an F.I.R. of the present petitioner is not being registered by the police authority. While referring to the facts of the complaint, he has submitted that there is prima facie disclosure of the cognizable offence which requires to register as an F.I.R. While relying on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Vijayander Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2014 (3) SCC 289, he has prayed to allow the present petition. 7. Per contra, Ms. Moxa Thakkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the complainant Police Sub-Inspector of Pandesara Police Station as referred to hereinabove and has submitted that on preliminary inquiry, it is found that no cognizable offence is made out and the dispute is of civil nature, she has prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2014 (2) SCC 1 , the Apex Court has issued following conclusions, directions in Paragraph Nos. 120.1 to 120.8 as under: "120.1. Registration of F.I.R. is mandatory under Sec. 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the F.I.R. must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the F.I.R. if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the F.I.R. if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7. While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since, the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a Police Station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of F.I.R. or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above." 9. In the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779 , the Apex Court has held and observed in Paragraph No. 8 as under: "The exceptions that were carved out pertain to medical negligence cases as has been stated in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 (6) SCC 1 . In the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani, reported in 2017 (2) SCC 779 , the Apex Court has held and observed in Paragraph No. 8 as under: "The exceptions that were carved out pertain to medical negligence cases as has been stated in Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 (6) SCC 1 . The Court also referred to the authorities in P. Sirajuddin v. State of Madras, 1970 (1) SCC 595 and C.B.I. v. Tapan Kumar Singh, 2003 (6) SCC 175 , and finally held that what is necessary is only that the information given to the Police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. In such a situation, registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the F.I.R. need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct a sort of preliminary verification or inquiry for the limited purpose of ascertaining as to whether a cognizable offence has been committed. But, if the information given clearly mentions the commission of cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an F.I.R. forthwith. Other considerations are not relevant at the stage of registration of F.I.R., such as, whether the information is genuine, whether the information is credible, etc. At the stage of registration of F.I.R., what is to be seen is merely whether the information given ex facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence." 10. Having considered the rival submissions and the material placed on record, it appears that earlier, this Court has issued necessary directions to the Police Authority to the following effect in Paragraph No. 2 of the order dated 5-7-2017 passed in Special Criminal Application No. 4653 of 2017 as under: "2. The Police Inspector of Pandesara Police Station, shall look into the application/complaint dated 16-5-2017 submitted by the petitioner and take a decision whether the same discloses commission of any cognizable offence or not. After perusal of the complaint and inquiry, if any, the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, in such circumstances, the First Information Report be registered forthwith. After perusal of the complaint and inquiry, if any, the Police Inspector is of the view that the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence, then, in such circumstances, the First Information Report be registered forthwith. However, if the Police Inspector is of the view that no case is made out for the registration of the F.I.R., then, in such circumstances, the petitioner be informed in writing about the same by giving reasons in brief within a period of fortnight from today." 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that when the information is laid with the police, but no action in that behalf is taken, the complainant can under Sec. 190 read with Sec. 200 of the Code lay the complaint before the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence and the Magistrate is required to enquire into the complaint as provided in Chapter XV of the Code. In case of All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees' Union (Reg.) through its President v. Union of India, 1996 (11) SCC 582 , it was specifically observed by the Apex Court that a writ petition in such cases is not to be entertained. The same ratio has been reiterated in the case of Gangadhar Janardan Mhatre v. State of Maharashtra, 2004 (7) SCC 768 . 12. In the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2008 (2) SCC 409 , the Apex Court has held and observed in Para 11 as under: "11. In this connection, we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the Police Station is not registering his F.I.R. under Sec. 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Sec. 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the F.I.R. is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Sec. 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the F.I.R. to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. If such an application under Sec. 156(3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the F.I.R. to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation." 13. The above view has been re-affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 . The Apex Court in this case has held and observed in Paras 2 and 3 as under: "2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., 2008 (2) SCC 409 , that if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R. has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under. Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. If such an application under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the F.I.R. to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the Investigating Officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case (supra) because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the First Information Report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able to do any other work except dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if. prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the First Information Report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 14. Hence, we have held that the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if. prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the First Information Report and also ensure a proper investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation." 14. In view of the above settled law, this Court is of the view that the proper course for the petitioner-complainant is to approach the concerned Magistrate by filing complaint under Sec. 190 of the Criminal Procedure Code. 15. With this observation, this petition stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.