Police Inaction On Complaint Violates Right to Remedy; MP High Court Directs Decision on FIR Within 90 Days Under S.173 BNSS - 2025-09-19

MP High Court Orders Police to Act on Complaint Within 90 Days, Citing Inaction as a Bar to Justice

Indore: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has directed state police authorities to decide on a complaint filed by a trading company within 90 days, emphasizing that police cannot indefinitely "sit tight over the matter." Justice Pranay Verma, presiding over the case, ruled that the existence of an alternative remedy is not a bar to a writ petition when police inaction effectively denies a citizen the path to further legal recourse.

Case Background

The case, M/s Aaratrika Trader vs The State of Madhya Pradesh , was brought before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, M/s Aaratrika Trader, had filed a complaint on September 6, 2025, alleging that a cognizable offense had been committed. Despite the complaint, the police authorities took no action, neither registering a First Information Report (FIR) nor informing the petitioner of their decision. This prompted the petitioner to seek a judicial directive to compel the authorities to act.

Arguments in Court

• Petitioner's Counsel: The petitioner argued that the police inaction was a dereliction of duty. Citing Section 173 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the counsel submitted that the police are obligated to conduct a preliminary inquiry within 14 days for offenses punishable between 3-7 years. If a prima facie case is found, an FIR must be registered. If not, the complainant must be informed so they can pursue other legal remedies. The counsel stressed that the authorities were "sitting tight over the matter," leaving the petitioner in legal limbo.

• State's Counsel: The Government Advocate representing the state argued that the writ petition was not maintainable, as the petitioner had an "alternate remedy" available and should approach the appropriate authorities with their grievance.

Court's Rationale and Legal Principles

Justice Pranay Verma rejected the state's argument regarding the availability of an alternative remedy, clarifying a crucial point of law. The court held that the discretion to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 remains with the court, especially in cases where the alternative remedy is not efficacious or fundamental rights are violated.

The judgment highlighted a critical distinction: "A party will have alternate remedy only when Police informs that no cognizable offence is made out. In the present case, the Police is sitting tight over the matter and no decision is taken to register the case or not... No decision has been taken by respondents in view of which the petitioner is unable to proceed further."

The court reinforced its decision by referencing the landmark Supreme Court ruling in Lalita Kumari Vs. Govt. of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 , which mandates the registration of an FIR if a complaint discloses a cognizable offense. The High Court stated that police authorities are free to decide whether or not to lodge an FIR, but they must make a decision in accordance with the law.

Final Order and Implications

The High Court disposed of the petition with a clear directive to the respondent police authorities. The court ordered them to:

• Conduct a preliminary inquiry into the petitioner's complaint to determine if a cognizable offense is made out.
• Register an FIR if a cognizable offense is disclosed.
• Inform the petitioner if no cognizable offense is found.

The court mandated that either of these actions must be completed within a period of 90 days from the receipt of the court's order. This judgment serves as a significant reminder to law enforcement agencies of their statutory duty to act on complaints promptly and underscores that inaction cannot be used to thwart a citizen's access to justice.