W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 $~102 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010420412026 + W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 RAKHI .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Deepika Garg and Ms. Arti, Advs. versus GOVT OF NCT DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Lao, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Manoj Pant, APP, Mr. Abhinav Kumar and Mr. Aryan Sachdeva, Advs. SI Varsha, PS Mehrauli. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN O R D E R % 07.09.2026 1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 27610/2026 (for exemption) 2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 3. The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter alia, seeking a direction to Respondent No. 1 to register an FIR on the basis of the complaints made by the Petitioner against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and to conduct a fair and effective investigation into the allegations contained therein. The Petitioner has also sought a threat assessment and police protection on account of the alleged threats extended by the private Respondents. 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 08/09/2026 at 12:05:49 W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 4. The case of the Petitioner is that during the year 2024, while she was working as a Sales Promoter at Mehrauli, she came in contact with Respondent No. 2, who was working at an establishment situated adjacent to her workplace. It is alleged that Respondent No. 2 repeatedly assured the Petitioner that he would marry her and, relying upon such assurances, the Petitioner entered into a relationship with him. 5. The Petitioner alleges that she thereafter became pregnant on three occasions and was subjected to pressure and coercion by Respondent No. 2 and, on certain occasions, by his family members to terminate the pregnancies. In relation to the third pregnancy, it is alleged that Respondent No. 2 made her consume abortion pills without appropriate medical supervision. 6. It is further alleged that the Petitioner subsequently developed severe abdominal pain and was found to have an ectopic pregnancy, requiring emergency surgical intervention. According to the Petitioner, one of her fallopian tubes had ruptured and was required to be removed during the course of surgery. 7. The Petitioner further alleges that thereafter Respondent No. 2 refused to marry her and that Respondent No. 2 and his family members subjected her and her parents to humiliation and threats. Allegations of continued intimidation have also been made against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. 8. The record reflects that the Petitioner submitted a written complaint to the SHO, P.S. Mehrauli, bearing Diary No. 170A dated 09.07.2026. Thereafter, another complaint dated 13.08.2026 was sent to the SHO as well as to the senior police authorities, followed by a reminder dated 18.08.2026 addressed to the concerned DCP. 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 08/09/2026 at 12:05:49 W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that despite the aforesaid complaints, no effective action has been taken by the police authorities. It is submitted that the allegations disclose cognizable offences and, therefore, an FIR ought to have been registered. 10. Learned counsel further submits that the Petitioner continues to face threats from Respondent No. 2 and his family members and, therefore, seeks protection from this Court. It is also alleged that the woman police officer dealing with the complaint acted in a biased manner and pressured the Petitioner to withdraw her complaint. 11. During the course of hearing, this Court specifically queried learned counsel for the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner had approached the jurisdictional Magistrate in respect of the alleged non-registration of the FIR. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner fairly submits that the Petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate and has, till date, approached only the SHO and the senior police authorities. 13. Heard. The principal grievance raised in the present petition is the alleged failure of the police authorities to register an FIR and investigate the allegations made by the Petitioner. The statutory scheme itself provides an efficacious remedy in such a situation. 14. Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’) provides a remedy where the officer in charge of a police station refuses to record the information furnished by an aggrieved person. Upon failure of the remedy before the superior police authority, the aggrieved person may approach the Magistrate. Section 175(3) of the BNSS further empowers the competent Magistrate to order investigation in accordance with law. 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 08/09/2026 at 12:05:49 W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 15. In Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court specifically held that where the grievance of a person is that an FIR has not been registered, or that a proper investigation is not being conducted, the High Court should ordinarily decline to interfere and relegate the person to the remedy available before the concerned Magistrate. The said position was reiterated in M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, wherein the Supreme Court set aside the direction issued by the High Court for registration of an FIR and investigation, while leaving it open to the complainant to approach the Magistrate concerned. 16. In the present case, admittedly, the Petitioner has not availed the remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate. Having approached the police authorities and alleging inaction on their part, the Petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking registration of an FIR and investigation. 17. There is no dispute that the existence of an alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, in matters concerning non-registration of an FIR, the settled course is that the complainant should ordinarily first avail the statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In the facts of the present case, this Court finds no reason to depart from the said course. The allegations regarding the conduct of the police officer concerned, as also the material relied upon by the Petitioner, may also be placed before the jurisdictional Magistrate for consideration in accordance with law. 18. Reliance placed upon Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, does not assist the Petitioner insofar as the maintainability of the present petition at this stage is concerned. Lalita Kumari (supra) lays 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 08/09/2026 at 12:05:49 W.P.(CRL) 2739/2026 down that registration of an FIR is mandatory where the information furnished to the police discloses commission of a cognizable offence. The question presently before this Court, however, is whether the Petitioner, upon alleging failure of the police to perform that duty, ought to directly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court without first approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. 19. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition at this stage. The petition is dismissed, with liberty to the Petitioner to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate and avail the remedies available to her under the applicable provisions of the BNSS, in accordance with law. 20. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations made by the Petitioner. In case the Petitioner avails the aforesaid remedy, the same shall be considered by the competent Court independently and in accordance with law. 21. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 7, 2026/m 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 08/09/2026 at 12:05:49