JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. This petition has been filed for direction upon the respondent authority to take necessary action against the respondent nos. 08 to 11 who were forcefully entered into the house of the petitioner which is situated at Village-Dudhani, Mauza-Dudhani No. 259, J.B. No. 22, Plot No. 502, Area-80 decimals. The further prayer is made for direction upon the respondent authority to take necessary action against the respondent nos. 8 to 11 to vacate the house of the petitioner where they were forcefully occupied. Further prayer is made for institution of the F.I.R. upon the respondent no. 5, Officer in Charge, Madhupur Police Station or respondent no. 6 Officer in Charge Madhupur Mahila Police Station who had not instituted the written report of the petitioner on 08.04.2021 and 28.04.2021 as F.I.R. against the respondent nos.8 to 11. 3. This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. The remedies under the Cr.P.C. is available to the petitioner. Any aggrieved person for proper investigation can approach the civil court under section 154 and 156(3) Cr.P.C. A reference may be made to the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 . Paragraph nos. 26, 27 and 28 of the said judgment are quoted herein-below: “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) Cr.P.C. or other police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are so many alternative remedies? 27. 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 Cr.P.C. 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) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.” 5. In view of the above facts and considering that the disputed question of facts is involved in the writ petition and the petitioner is having alternative remedy in which relief can be extended to the petitioner, the instant petition [W.P. (Cr.) No. 189 of 2021] is dismissed with liberty to take appropriate remedy as provided under the Criminal Procedure Code.