THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.12056 of 2025

ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

2. Having regard to the manner of disposal of the Writ Petition at the admission stage and the nature of lis involved, this Court is of the view that notice to unofficial respondent Nos.4 and 5 is not necessary for adjudication of the present Writ Petition.

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioners, in brief, is that though they have approached the respondents-authorities and lodged a complaint on 29.01.2025, no action has been taken thereon by the authorities, even though the contents of the aforesaid complaint disclose commission of cognizable offence by the unofficial respondents 4 and 5, which action of the respondents-authorities it is contended as highly illegal and arbitrary.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that based on the complaint made by the petitioners on an earlier occasion, on the same set of facts, a case, vide Crime No.16 of 2025 dt.22.01.2025 has been registered and the authorities have taken up investigation into the same, and as such, the petitioners cannot once again approach the respondents-authorities and lodge a complaint within seven days after registration of the earlier complaint on the same set of facts.

5. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged.

6. Firstly, it is to be noted that as the respondents-authorities have already registered a case on the same set of facts against the unofficial respondents, vide Crime No.16 of 2025, the petitioners could not have approached the respondents-authorities once again by lodging another complaint after seven days, and thereafter, by filing writ petition before this Court after three months, claiming inaction on the part of the respondents-authorities in registering FIR.

7. Secondly, it is also to be noted that if the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents-authorities in registering FIR, instead of approaching this Court by filing a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners ought to have availed remedies provided under BNSS.

8. Further, this Court in W.P.No.7159 of 2025 dt.10.03.2025 had held that for non-registration of FIR, a writ remedy cannot be availed and the petitioners are required to avail remedies provided under the Code/BNSS.

9. In the facts of the present case, since the petitioners herein are similarly situated, the said order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition would apply in all force to the facts of the present case and the petitioners have to avail remedies provided under BNSS.

10. As it is not shown to this Court of the petitioners having availed remedies under BNSS, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should be relegated to avail remedies under BNSS.

11. Granting liberty as noted herein, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

12. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.

__________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J Date:23.04.2025

GJ

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No.12056 of 2025

23.04.2025 GJ