UKHC010100032026 2026:UHC:4974 SL . N o. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL No. 1070 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. M.K. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. By means of the present Criminal Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 1 to consider and decide the application/tahrir dated 27.05.2026 submitted by the petitioner in the light of Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (B.N.S.S.). (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction directing respondent no. 1 to produce before this Court the conclusion report of the enquiry/investigation conducted pursuant to the application/tahrir dated 27.05.2026. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 21.05.2026 at about 5:30 p.m., two persons, namely, Vilas and Jitin, allegedly took away the petitioner's 19-year- old son. At about 8:00 p.m., the petitioner found his son in the company of the said persons at Khayikhera Chauraha. Upon enquiring, Vilas and Jitin informed the petitioner that they would safely drop his son at the factory where he was employed. UKHC010100032026 2026:UHC:4974 Thereafter, the petitioner repeatedly attempted to contact Jitin over the phone, but his calls went unanswered. On the following day, i.e., 22.05.2026 at about 8:00 a.m., the petitioner received a telephone call from the police informing him that his son had met with an accident and that his body was lying on the railway track adjoining the Baskheda Cremation Ground. The petitioner's wife and another son immediately rushed to the spot and, upon observing the circumstances at the place of occurrence, suspected that the deceased had been murdered by Vilas and Jitin and that, after committing the offence, they had thrown the body on the railway track to give it the appearance of an accident. 5. Learned counsel further submits that on 22.05.2026, the petitioner submitted an application/tahrir before the authorities of Police Station I.T.I., District Udham Singh Nagar, seeking registration of a First Information Report against the aforesaid persons and requesting a detailed investigation into the matter. However, despite the serious allegations, no action was taken by the police authorities. Thereafter, on 27.05.2026, the petitioner submitted another representation to respondent no. 1–Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, reiterating the entire sequence of events and requesting appropriate legal action. It is contended that despite the lapse of a reasonable period, neither any cognizance was taken by respondent no. 1 nor was any F.I.R. UKHC010100032026 2026:UHC:4974 registered. Aggrieved by the continued inaction of the police authorities and the failure to register the F.I.R., the petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel has opposed the writ petition on the ground of maintainability. It is submitted that an efficacious and alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is contended that in the event of non-registration of an F.I.R., the petitioner ought to have approached the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an appropriate application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. Since the petitioner has failed to avail the said statutory remedy, the present writ petition is not maintainable. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. It is a settled principle of law that where an effective statutory remedy is available, the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to be ordinarily invoked, unless exceptional circumstances are made out. No such exceptional circumstance has been demonstrated in the present case so as to UKHC010100032026 2026:UHC:4974 warrant interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, the petitioner is granted liberty to approach the competent Magistrate by filing an appropriate application under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking redressal of his grievances. 9. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present Criminal Writ Petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 17.06.2026 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29B DF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2026.06.17 17:04:49 +05'30'