$~95 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010741442025 + W.P.(CRL) 3206/2025 SHISHIR CHAND .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Shishir Chand, Advocate. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Amol Sinha, ASC for State CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 12.08.2026 1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- “(i) Direct Respondent No. 1 to lodge FIR against Respondent No. 2 u/s 3(5), 61(2), 238, 241 BNS. (ii) Pass any other Order/ Orders that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case.” 2. It emerges from the record that the petitioner’s younger brother, late Mr. Vishal Chand, died on 21.05.2011, allegedly on account of medical negligence at the hands of one Mr. Atul Chhabra, who was, at the relevant time, purportedly impersonating as Senior Surgeon, Casualty in the Emergency Ward of Tata Main Hospital, Jamshedpur. Pursuant to an order dated 04.05.2014 passed under Section 156(3) of the erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the CJM, Jamshedpur, FIR No. 164/2014 came This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:33:33 to be registered at P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, under Sections 304/304-A IPC, which is stated to be pending investigation/trial. 3. It is the petitioner’s case that Respondent No. 2, i.e., Maulana Azad Medical College [“MAMC”], from which the said doctor is alleged to have obtained his MBBS degree in 1989, has failed to furnish the 1989-90 MBBS seat allotment records sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on the stated ground that the records, being more than three decades old, are untraceable. According to the petitioner, this constitutes a wilful causation of disappearance of evidence and destruction of documents relevant to the aforesaid pending prosecution, thereby attracting the offences under Sections 3(5), 61(2), 238 and 241 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 4. It further emerges that the petitioner lodged a criminal complaint dated 08.11.2024 before the DCP, Central District, Delhi/Respondent No. 1, seeking registration of an FIR against Respondent No. 2 on the aforesaid allegations. The said complaint was inquired into between November 2024 and June 2025, and culminated in a report dated 26.06.2025, declining registration of an FIR, inter alia, on the ground that the documents in question are not part of any fresh offence within the jurisdiction of P.S. IP Estate, and pertain to a continuing matter already forming subject of investigation in FIR No. 164/2014 registered at P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. It is well settled that a person aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR, or by the manner in which his complaint has been dealt with by the police, cannot directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, or its inherent powers under Section 528 BNSS/Section 482 Cr.P.C., without first This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:33:33 exhausting the graded statutory remedies engrafted in the Code. This hierarchy of remedies has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.1, in the following terms:- “25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3). 26. 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?" [Emphasis Supplied] 7. This position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.2, wherein it was further clarified that resort to the Magistrate must necessarily be preceded by prior recourse to the police, in the following terms:- “31. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Sections 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed.” 1 (2008) 2 SCC 409. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:33:33 8. This very safeguard now finds express statutory codification in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Section 175(3) BNSS, which corresponds to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., requires that an application before the Magistrate be accompanied by a copy of the prior application made to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS (corresponding to Section 154(3) Cr.P.C.), supported by an affidavit, and further empowers the Magistrate to conduct such enquiry as he may consider necessary, and to take into account the reasons furnished by the police for declining registration, before directing registration of an FIR. The Supreme Court, in Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra3, while elucidating this changed statutory scheme, has emphasised the mandatory nature of these procedural safeguards and the necessity of the Magistrate applying his judicial mind before directing registration of an FIR or investigation, distinguishing the position that obtained under the erstwhile Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. 9. It may also be noticed that where a writ Court has itself directed registration of an FIR without relegating the complainant to the aforesaid remedy, the Supreme Court has not hesitated to set aside such a direction. In M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki4, it was held as under:- “5. 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 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. 2 (2015) 6 SCC 287. 3 2025 INSC 139. 4 (2020) 16 SCC 728. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:33:33 “8. In these circumstances, we would allow the present appeal and set aside the direction of the High Court for registration of the FIR and investigation into the matter by the police. At the same time, our order would not be an impediment in the way of the first respondent filing documents and papers with the police pursuant to the complaint dated 18.09.2008 and the police on being satisfied that a criminal offence is made out would have liberty to register an FIR. It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary. Equally, it will be open to the appellants and others to take steps to protect their interest.” 10. Applying the aforesaid position of law to the facts of the instant case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner, upon his complaint dated 08.11.2024 culminating in a report dated 26.06.2025 declining registration of an FIR, has not availed of the remedy of moving the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS. Instead of invoking the said statutory remedy, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court directly under Article 226/Section 528 BNSS, which, in view of the settled position of law noticed above, is impermissible. 11. Additionally, it is not in dispute that FIR No. 164/2014 registered at P.S. Bistupur, Jamshedpur, is already under investigation/trial, and Respondent No. 1, in its report, has taken the position that the very documents which the petitioner alleges have been caused to disappear are evidence relatable to, and form part of, the said pending case. Whether the conduct attributed to Respondent No. 2 constitutes a fresh cognizable offence within the jurisdiction of this Court, or is a matter properly to be agitated before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, or before the court seized of FIR No. 164/2014, is a question that requires an ascertainment of facts which this Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/Section 528 BNSS, ought not to undertake in the first instance. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:33:33 12. In view of the foregoing discussion this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, and it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the instant petition without the petitioner having availed of the said remedy. 13. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the instant petition stands disposed of. 14. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. 15. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 12, 2026 Nc This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 14/08/2026 at 13:33:33