JUDGMENT Nandita Dubey, J. - The petitioner, a senior most IPS Officer (suspended on 29th September,2020), has filed this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent no.1 to 4/authorities in relation to various complaints made by him in respect of criminal acts committed by respondent no.5 who happens to be his wife. The grievance of the petitioner is that after a matrimonial dispute with his wife, he started living separately from his wife who not only stolen his licensed revolver and car,but also trespassed his house and threatened and abused him. It is submitted that a complaint in this regard has been made to the police authorities, however, no action has been taken by them. The further contention is that the petitioner being victim on account of undue influence and political pressure is under apprehension that he may suffer fatal loss of life and limb. As regards, apprehension of loss of life and limb on account of political pressure is concerned, there is no document to substantiate the claim of petitioner. He has made certain allegations against his wife and his claim is that he is having CCTV footage/CD in this regard. according to the petitioner, despite repeated complaints/ representations, the police authorities are not taking cognizance of the complaints made by him as against his wife. In Sudhir Bhaskar Rao Tambe Vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and others (2016) 6 SCC 277 , the Supreme Court referring to the case of aleque Padamsee and others Vs. Union of India and others (2007) 6 SCC 171 and Sakri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 has held :- '2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of U.P. (supra), that if a person has a grievance that his FIR 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 article 226 of Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR 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 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 alternate his remedy to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC 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.' In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that no action has been taken on the repeated complaints filed by him against his wife. However, in view of the aforesaid settled position of law, this writ petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail alternative remedy available to him under Sections 154(3), 156(3), 190 or 200 Cr.P.C.