$~86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010357172026 + W.P.(CRL) 2349/2026 CRL.M.A. 23723/2026 INDERJIT SINGH & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Ankur Bhasin and Mr. Arjun Sawhney, Advs. versus THE STATE (N.C.T OF DELHI) & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, ASC with Mr. Kshitiz Garg, Mr. Ashvini Kumar, Mrs. Chavi Lazarus and Mr. Nitish Dhawan, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 06.08.2026 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) seeking issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent police authorities to preserve and seize the alleged evidence relating to the incident dated 29.07.2026, initiate departmental action against the erring police officials for the alleged failure to perform their duties, take appropriate action against the private respondents, and provide police protection to the petitioners. 2. In brief, the petitioners are residents of the third floor of property 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 10/08/2026 at 12:06:21 bearing No. D-14A/1, Model Town-III, Delhi-110009, and have been involved in long-standing criminal litigation with the occupants of the second floor of the said property. It is alleged that on the night of 29.07.2026, the residents of the IInd floor trespassed onto the residence of the petitioner, abused and threatened the petitioners and their family members, and one Mayank Gandhi sprayed a ‘hazardous, highly toxic chemical spray’ which caused ‘acute eye burning, severe skin irritation,involuntary gagging, and immediate throat choking’ and other health issues to the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite a PCR call on the same day and the lodging of detailed written complaint dated 30.07.2026 at Police Station Model Town, the police failed to preserve the alleged crime scene, seize the purported toxic spray canisters, collect forensic and digital evidence, provide proper medical assistance, or take appropriate action against the alleged perpetrators. It is contended that the continued inaction of the respondent police has resulted in destruction of material evidence and infringes the petitioners' rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that the petitioners continue to face threats from the private respondents. 4. Per contra, learned ASC submits that the dispute arises out of a neighbourhood dispute by both sides and that appropriate action has already been taken by the respondent police. He submits that a kalandra under Section 126 of the BNSS has already been filed. It is further submitted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the action taken or the non-registration of an FIR, they have efficacious remedies under the law and, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the record. 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 10/08/2026 at 12:06:21 6. The principal grievance of the petitioners pertains to the alleged inaction on the part of the police in taking action on the complaint lodged by them, preserving the alleged crime scene, collecting evidence, carrying out a proper investigation and initiating criminal proceedings against the private respondents. The reliefs sought in the present petition are intrinsically connected with investigation of a cognizable offence under the BNSS. 7. It is well settled that where a person is aggrieved by the failure of the police to register an FIR or by an alleged improper, unfair or incomplete investigation, there is a complete and efficacious statutory mechanism. Such a person may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) of the BNSS and, if still aggrieved, invoke the jurisdiction of the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The Magistrate is vested with wide powers not only to direct registration of an FIR but also to ensure that a fair and proper investigation is carried out. 8. It is well settled that where a person is aggrieved by the non-registration of an FIR or by the manner in which the investigation is being conducted, the Code provides a complete and efficacious statutory mechanism. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, subsequently reiterated and reaffirmed in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Ors., (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: “11. In this connection we would like to state that if a person has a grievance that the police station is not registering his FIR under Section 154 Cr.P.C., then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. by an application in writing. Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or that even after registering it no proper investigation is held, it is open to 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 10/08/2026 at 12:06:21 the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the learned Magistrate concerned. If such an application under Section 156 (3) is filed before the Magistrate, the Magistrate can direct the FIR to be registered and also can direct a proper investigation to be made, in a case where, according to the aggrieved person, no proper investigation was made. The Magistrate can also under the same provision monitor the investigation to ensure a proper investigation.” 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I am of the opinion that no ground is made out for invoking the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue mandamus. The grievance raised by the petitioners is capable of being adequately addressed by resorting to the statutory remedies available under the law. Besides, as submitted by learned ASC, appropriate action has already been taken by the respondent police and the Investigating Officer has filed kalandra in this matter. Even otherwise, if the petitioners remain aggrieved by the action taken or the alleged inadequacy thereof, it is always open to them to avail the remedies available under the BNSS. 10. Consequently, the present writ petition, along with all pending application(s), if any, stands dismissed. 11. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J AUGUST 6, 2026/JYH/sd 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 10/08/2026 at 12:06:21