Dismissed

Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India & Anr.

Delhi HC6 Nov 2024W.P.(CRL)/3443/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing a writ petition seeking directions for expeditious disposal of Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./Section 175(3) BNSS applications and fixed timelines for FIR registration. The Court held that no fixed time frame applies due to the need for magistrate application of mind and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition seeking directions for timelines was dismissed as no specific timeline can be prescribed.

Vivek Kumar Gaurav Vs Union of India & Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~38

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(CRL) 3443/2024 & CRL.M.A. 33091/2024

¶4

VIVEK KUMAR GAURAV .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Shukla, Advocate with petitioner in person

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.	..	...Respondents
Through:	Mr. Amit Tiwari,	CGSC with Mr.
	Himanshu Bhiduri,	GP, Mr. Ayush
	Tanwar and Mr.	Rahul Bhaskar,
	Advocates for R-1
	Ms. Kanika Agniho	tri, Advocate for
	R-2

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶8

O R D E R % 06.11.2024

¶9

Present writ petition has been filed seeking directions to all District Courts to expeditiously decide all applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking registration of FIR. The petitioner further seeks directions to the police authorities to carry out a preliminary enquiry within a fixed time frame on receipt of information disclosing commission of a cognizable offence.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is a conspicuous absence of a specific timeline within which applications under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./section 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are to be decided. He states that absence of any timeline leads to i nordinate

¶11

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/07/2025 at 03:15:08

¶12

delay in registration of FIR, rendering the remedy ineffective. He states that due to passage of time, the electronic and scientific evidence like CCTV footages and DNA/forensic evidence gets diminished resulting in ineffective investigation. He states that in the meantime, the applicants are left unprotected as they do not fall under the ambit of victim protection scheme.

¶13

It is settled law that a Magistrate hearing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., has to apply its mind and is not bound to direct investigation by police in each and every case. Registration of a case can only be directed after due application of mind. The Magistrate may also treat the application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as a complaint and straightaway proceed under Section 200 Cr.P.C. doing away with registration of FIR or an investigation. Therefore, there cannot be a fixed time frame for adjudication of an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. as the same requires the Magistrate to apply his mind to the contents of the application and material before him/her.

¶14

In the event the petitioner or any other applicant filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C./1 75(3) is aggrieved by the inordinate delay in disposal of the application, he/she is always at liberty to approach the superior Courts for necessary directions.

¶15

Consequently, as ‘there is no one size that fits all’ , no general directions are called for. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

¶16

MANMOHAN, CJ

¶17

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶18

NOVEMBER 6, 2024/ ms

¶19

Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Gaurav v. Union of India & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tasleem Vs State of NCT of Delhi

Ishan Mathur Vs State & Anr.

Jyoti Gupta & Anr. Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors.

Mrs. Sunita Grover Vs State & Ors.

Hdfc Bank Ltd. through Its Branch Manager & Ors. Vs State NCT of Delhi & Ors.

Rajender @ Kallu Vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Deepak @ Peta Vs State Govt of NCT of Delhi

Ashok Vishwakarma @ Sarji (in Jc) Vs State

Vinod Kumar Jain Vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies & Anr.

Shanti Mahato Vs Gulshan Verma & Anr.

M/S Pashmina Exporters and Manufacturers Association and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Well Protect Manpower Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Baba Sahab Ambedkar Hospital & Ors.

Sidhant Malaiya Vs Union of India & Anr.

Anoop Sharma Vs Commonwealth Games Village Apartment Owners Association & Ors.