$~85 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 2219/2026 ANSHUL LAMBA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Madan Jha, Adv. versus THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Yasir Rauf Ansari (ASC), Mr. Alok Sharma, Mr. Pavitra Dixit, Advs. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 28.07.2026 CRL.M.A. 22164/2026 (Exemption) 1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2219/2026 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking the following reliefs: “a. issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other Writ, order or direction as may be deemed appropriate by this Hon’ble Court, directing the respondents herein to ensure the safety of life, liberty and property; b. issue writ, directions or orders in the nature of protection of the Petitioners from the Accused Persons continuously causing life threatening intimidation resulting into threat to life and safety to the Petitioners; 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 01/08/2026 at 11:39:35 c. to direct the concerned respondents and more particularly, the Respondent No.1 to immediately register an FIR as required by the provisions of the BNSS, 2023 and also the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1; d. issue writ directing Special Cell / CBI to look into the matter in the light of the scope and design of the criminal spread over different states and evidences to be collected from the different jurisdictions of different states;” 4. It emerges from the record that the petitioners had applied for a Loan Against Property (“LAP”) through Shivalik Small Finance Bank on an assurance that, save for a 5% processing fee, no other charges would be levied and that the petitioners would receive Rs.75 lakhs in hand. 5. Relying on the said assurance, the petitioners foreclosed an existing payday loan of approximately Rs.9.5 lakhs availed from a private financier, namely Rajvir Securities and Finance Pvt. Ltd. (also known as FiGii Techlend Solutions Pvt. Ltd.), in order to avail the LAP being offered by the bank. 6. It is the petitioners’ case that the sanction letter thereafter issued by the bank was at material variance with what had been discussed, and contained several undisclosed charges, namely legal charges, valuation charges, insurance charges, and a 5% foreclosure penalty for three years, on account of which the amount actually receivable fell well short of the assured Rs.75 lakhs. 7. The petitioners contend that upon their refusal to accept the sanction letter and their request for cancellation and return of the signed dockets and blank cheques furnished to the bank, officials of the bank, including its 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 01/08/2026 at 11:39:35 CEO, National Head and Branch Head, repeatedly called, visited, and coerced the petitioners to accept the loan, and threatened them with false implication and loss of employment. 8. The petitioners state that they addressed a written complaint dated 20.07.2026 to the SHO, P.S. Maurya Enclave, Pitampura (vide DD No.64A) and to the DCP, District North-West (vide Diary No.75/7), seeking registration of an FIR against the officials of the bank. No FIR has been registered pursuant thereto. 9. The present petition came to be filed on 22.07.2026, i.e., barely two days after the complaint to the police, without the petitioners having made any application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, and without any escalation of the grievance to the Superintendent of Police. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi1, to submit that registration of an FIR is mandatory once the information discloses a cognizable offence, and that the Respondent No.1 was consequently obligated in law to register an FIR on the petitioners' complaint. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court read as follows:- “...the sine qua non for recording an FIR under Section 154 of the Code is that there must be information and that information must disclose a cognizable offence. If any information disclosing a cognizable offence is led before an officer in charge of the police station satisfying the requirement of Section 154(1), the said police officer has no other option except to enter the substance thereof in the prescribed form, that is to say, to register a case on the basis of such information. The provision of Section 154 of the Code is mandatory and the officer concerned is duty- bound to register the case on the basis of information disclosing a cognizable offence.” 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1. 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 01/08/2026 at 11:39:35 11. The proposition in Lalita Kumari (supra), however, governs the obligation of the police upon receipt of information disclosing a cognizable offence; it does not, by itself, entitle a complainant to bypass the statutory hierarchy of remedies and to approach this Court under Article 226 or Section 528 BNSS for a direction to register an FIR, particularly where that hierarchy has not first been exhausted. This hierarchy has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.2. Relevant paragraph nos. 27 and 28 are reproduced as under:- 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 CrPC 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) CrPC before the Magistrate or by filing a criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC and not by filing a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. “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.” [Emphasis Supplied] 12. This position was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage3, in the following terms:- “2. This Court has held in the Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. case, 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 2 (2008) 2 SCC 409. 3 (2016) 6 SCC 277. 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 01/08/2026 at 11:39:35 remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.”. 13. More pertinently, in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki4, the Supreme Court was itself confronted with a High Court order directing registration of an FIR and investigation on a writ petition, and set aside that very direction, holding as follows: “...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... It is also open to the first respondent to approach the court of the metropolitan magistrate if deemed appropriate and necessary.” 14. Bearing in mind the overall facts and circumstances of the case, and the fact that the dispute essentially emanates from a loan transaction between the petitioners and the bank concerning the terms of a sanction letter and the charges levied thereunder, this Court finds that a direction to register an FIR at this stage, without the petitioners having availed of the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate concerned, is wholly uncalled for. No exceptional circumstance is shown on record which would justify a departure from the settled hierarchy of remedies noticed above. 15. It is, accordingly, open to the petitioners, to file a proper application before the Judicial Magistrate concerned under Section 175(3) BNSS, supported by an affidavit in terms of the law laid down in Priyanka Srivastava (supra). 16. In view of above, the petition stands dismissed. 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 01/08/2026 at 11:39:35 17. All the rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JULY 28, 2026 NK/ab 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 01/08/2026 at 11:39:35