$~116 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010366292026 + W.P.(CRL) 2395/2026 RAM MULAKH DARBAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Varun Jain and Ms. Saroj Singh, Advocates. versus STATE NCT OF DELHI .....Respondent Through: Ms. Rupali Bandhopadhya, ASC with Mr. Abhijeet Kumar, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV O R D E R % 11.08.2026 CRL.M.A. 24249/2026 (EXEMPTION) 1. Exemptions allowed, subject to all just exceptions. 2. Application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2395/2026 3. The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by non-invocation of some of the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). It appears that on a complaint filed by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Magistrate directed for registration of FIR and, thereafter, the investigation has been carried out. 4. The petitioner submits that despite sufficient time, the investigation has not been taken to its logical conclusion and secondly some of the 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 13/08/2026 at 11:46:37 provisions of the IPC have not been invoked. 5. The Supreme Court in the case of Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.1, 2008 2 SCC 409, in paragraph nos. 27 and 28 has held 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.” 6. In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds that the petitioner has adequate remedy to approach the concerned Magistrate, who has very wide powers to direct for registration of the FIR and to ensure a proper investigation including the monitoring of the same. 7. Accordingly, if the petitioner does so, let his grievance be looked into appropriately with due expedition. 8. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. 9. All rights and contentions of the parties are left open. PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J AUGUST 11, 2026 ask 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 13/08/2026 at 11:46:37