W.P.(CRL) 3001/2026 Page 1 of 3 $~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 24.09.2026 # CNR No.DLHC010459232026 + W.P.(CRL) 3001/2026 VISHAL BHALLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit R. Sharma, Adv. versus GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rahul Tyagi (ASC) along with Mr. Sangeet Sibou, Ms. Priya Rai, Ms. Neha Tiwari, Mr. Utkarsh Bharat, Mr. Avinash Kumar Singh, Mr. Priyansh Raj Singh, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA SACHIN DATTA, J. (ORAL) Crl.M.A. 29958/2026 (Exemption from filing certified copies of annexures) 1. The application is disposed of with a direction to file certified copies of annexures within a period of two weeks from today. W.P.(CRL) 3001/2026 2. The petitioner seeks a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 to 4 to register a First Information Report (FIR) on the basis of the petitioner’s complaint dated 14.08.2026 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP), Dwarka District against respondent nos. 5 to 10 alleging inter- alia cheating, forgery, use of fabricated documents and criminal conspiracy in relation to a property. 3. It is noticed that the present petition has been filed barely a month after the complaint was first submitted. The scheme of the BNSS provides a complete and efficacious remedy for a person whose complaint disclosing a Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 13:03:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 3001/2026 Page 2 of 3 cognizable offence is not acted on by the police. In terms thereof, where Officer-In Charge refuses to record the information, the petitioner has the right to submit a complaint before the Superintendent of Police and, thereafter, to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS Section [Corresponding to 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)]. 4. In the present case, it is open to the petitioner to send the substance of the information/ complaint to the Superintendent of Police and if no action follows, apply to the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The filing of the present petition is clearly pre-mature and is not maintainable in terms of the dicta laid down in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage and Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 277 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as following:- “2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] , 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 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) CrPC. If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of the investigating officer, so that a proper investigation is done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907] because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for registration of the first information report or praying for a proper investigation. 3. 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. Digitally Signed By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 13:03:41 Signature Not Verified W.P.(CRL) 3001/2026 Page 3 of 3 4. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu case, the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside....” 5. Reference in this regard may also be had to the observations of the Supreme Court in Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another vs State of Maharashtra and Others 2026 SCC OnLine SC 798, wherein the Court has noted as follows:- “7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. 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 conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise. 8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 202316 (erstwhile Criminal Procedure Code, 197317) provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS.” 6. In the circumstances, the present petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the aforesaid authorities in terms of the statutory provisions of the BNSS and in accordance with law. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the substance of the complaint of the petitioner. 8. The petition is accordingly dismissed. SACHIN DATTA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026/uk By:CHINU LUTHRA Signing Date:26.09.2026 13:03:41