2026:UHC:4892 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPCRL/1811/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Krishan Kumar and Mr. Shankar Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Deepak Bisht, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Jai Prakash Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari and mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith register an F.I.R. on the basis of the petitioner's complaint dated 07.11.2025 in respect of the alleged commission of cognizable offences by the accused persons. The petitioners further seek a direction to respondent nos.1 to 4 to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against respondent nos.5 and 6 for allegedly refusing to receive the petitioner's complaint, humiliating the petitioner's counsel and submitting misleading and false reports to the superior authorities. A further prayer has been made for entrustment of the investigation to an independent agency not below the rank of Superintendent of Police and for 2026:UHC:4892 restraining respondent nos.5 and 6 from influencing the investigation, so that the plant, machinery, stock-in- trade and financial records of the petitioner-company may be traced, seized, secured and preserved from further alienation, removal or destruction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that petitioner is a Director of the petitioner-company. The company had erected a tin shed upon the leased industrial premises and, in terms of the lease deed, ownership of the said construction vested in the petitioner-company; that, the company had installed various plant and machinery and maintained substantial stock-in-trade at the said premises. According to the petitioners, the accused persons, by sending an e-mail communication, illegally took over possession of the leased industrial premises; that, thereafter, on the basis of fabricated and forged documents, they allegedly removed and misappropriated the plant, machinery and stock belonging to the petitioner- company. 5. He would further submit that despite submitting a detailed written complaint before the Senior Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, the authorities refused to receive the same. Subsequently, another detailed complaint was submitted to 2026:UHC:4892 the Senior Superintendent of Police and a complaint was also lodged through the Chief Minister's Helpline, but no F.I.R. has been registered; that, feeling aggrieved by the continued inaction of the police authorities and non- registration of the F.I.R., the petitioners have approached this Court. 6. Per contra, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the writ petition on the ground of maintainability and submits that an efficacious statutory remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S.. It is contended that, in the event of non- registration of an F.I.R., the petitioners ought to have approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. and, without availing the said remedy, the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that subsequent to the filing of the present writ petition, certain additional developments have taken place and the accused persons have allegedly continued to dispose of other machines belonging to the petitioner-company and have also extended threats of dire consequences to the petitioners. It is thus contended that fresh causes of action have arisen during the pendency of the present proceedings. 2026:UHC:4892 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the view that since an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioners under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S., it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the present writ petition at this stage. 9. Accordingly, the petitioner are granted liberty to approach the competent Magistrate by filing an appropriate application under Section 175(3) of the B.N.S.S. seeking redressal of their grievances. It shall also be open to the petitioner to place before the competent Magistrate all subsequent events and allegations concerning offences which are stated to have occurred during the pendency of the present writ petition. 10. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) 16.06.2026 Mamta MA MTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f 244f3e584af1449e430ef900b f09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001, st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d 9cabfd54852c9e68911ca8b6 6dd26690a191648ab5d8dd0 04ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.06.17 16:20:36 +05'30'