The High Court should ordinarily not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to order the registration of an FIR when the petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. (or corresponding BNSS provisions).

Whether approved for reporting? No¹

For the PetitioneCrs : Mr Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr Atharv Sharma, Advocate.
For Respoh ndents No.1 to 4-State : Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

The petitioners have filed the present petition for the registration of the FIR and the investigation of the allegations made against the private respondents. It has been asserted that the petitioners had purchased the land bearing Khasra No. 50/1/1 (old) and 1101 (new) from Joginder Singh in the years 2019 and 2023, vide two separate registered Sale Deeds. A demarcation was conducted, which was finalised on 31.08.2024. The petitioners harvested the wheat crop grown on Khasra No. 1101 on 21.04.2026 and kept the bundles of the crop in their fields. The private respondents took away the bundles at about 10 p.m. The petitioners made a complaint to the SHO, Police Station, Sadar, Una, regarding the theft. The police recovered the bundles of wheat from the tube well of Ram Kumar. However, the police did not register the FIR or investigate the matter. The police filed a kalandra before the learneud SDM, Una, under Section 126, 164 and 169 of Bharatiyao Nagarik Sarakshah Sanhita (BNSS). The complaint madeC by the petitioner disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, and the police were bound to register the FIR. Hence, it was prayed that the direction be issued to register the FIR and investigate the matter.

2. I have heard Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4/State.

3. Mr Ajay Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Atharv Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the complaint made by the petitioners disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence. The police were bound to register the FIR and carry out the investigation. However, the police failed to do so despite the recovery of the bundles of wheat. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed, the FIR be registered, and the action be taken against the private respondents as per the law.

4. Mr Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondents/State, submitted that the jurisdiction vested in this Court under Section 5u28 of the BNSS is extraordinary and should not be exercisoed when an alternative remedy is available. The petitioner hCas an alternative remedy of approaching the learned Magistrate. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

5. I have given a considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

6. It is apparent from the petition that the grievance of the petitioners is that they had made a complaint to the police disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence, but the police failed to register the FIR and investigate the matter. The police recovered the stolen property and filed a kalandra before the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, a prayer has been made for the registration of FIR.

7. It was held by Kerala High Court in Vasanthi Devi versus S.I. of Police and anr. , 2008 SCC online Kerala 47 that the Magistrate has the power to order the registration of the FIR and monitor the investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.; therefore, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for such directions is not maintainauble. It was observed:

“11. Later, after adverting to the principle that an exp