Article 32 of the Indian Constitution provides the right to constitutional remedies. It means that if an individual feels that his/her fundamental rights are being violated, then he/she can approach the Supreme Court directly. Now, let`s dissect the options:

Option 1: Even though the aggrieved person can get a remedy from another court, this doesn`t prevent them from seeking relief under Article 32 from the Supreme Court.

Option 2: Disputed facts needing investigation does not preclude the Supreme Court from granting relief under Article 32.

Option 3: This is the correct answer. If no fundamental right has been violated, that is the ground on which the Supreme Court can refuse relief under Article 32 because this article is particularly for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

Option 4: The type of writ being asked for is not a barrier to seeking relief under Article 32, as the Supreme Court has the power to issue any writs that are applicable for enforcement of the fundamental rights. Hence, this cannot be a reason to refuse relief.

In conclusion, only the non-infringement of a fundamental right can be a genuine reason for the Supreme Court to refuse relief.