Dismissed¶6

Malvi Dua v. Superintendent of Police Distt. Nainital

Uttarakhand HC5 Mar 2025WPCRL/1269/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition for direction to register FIR against private respondent dismissed as frivolous; alternative remedy under Section 175(3) of BNSS [old Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.] before Magistrate of competent jurisdiction; precondition of futile attempts with SHO and thereafter SSP; petitioner never approached Police Station concerned; representation dated 17.11.2024; mandamus refused; single Judge (Pankaj Purohit, J.).

What did the court decide?

None — the writ petition was dismissed as frivolous; pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of accordingly. ¶6

Malvi Dua Vs Superintendent of Police Distt. Nainital — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None — the writ petition was dismissed as frivolous; pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of accordingly.

¶6

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should entertain a criminal writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to register an FIR against a private respondent and investigate it, and to decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2024. +1 more

¶4

Court's answer

A writ petition of this kind — seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to register an FIR against a private respondent and to investigate it — cannot be entertained.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner's remedy for securing registration of an FIR lies under Section 175(3) of BNSS [Old Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.] by approaching the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction to issue such a direction.

¶5

Key takeaways

That remedy can be availed only when the attempt for registration of the FIR by the SHO concerned, and thereafter by the SSP, has resulted into a futile exercise.ratio¶5
On the pleadings in the writ petition, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner had ever approached the Police Station concerned for lodging of an FIR.ratio¶5
The writ petition was found to be quite frivolous and deserving of dismissal, and was accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal writ petition (WPCRL No.1269 of 2024, decided 05.03.2025) seeking a mandamus directing the respondent authorities to register an FIR against a private respondent and investigate it, and to decide the petitioner's representation dated 17.11.2024, dismissed as frivolous. Held: writ petitions of this kind cannot be entertained; the remedy lies under Section 175(3) of BNSS [Old Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.] by approaching the Magistrate of competent jurisdiction, and that too only when the attempt for registration of the FIR by the SHO concerned and, thereafter, the SSP has resulted into a futile exercise. On the pleadings, there was nothing to suggest that the petitioner had ever approached the Police Station concerned for lodging of an FIR.

¶1

SL. No Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS
	WPCRL No.1269 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Abdul Ali, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, learned AGA along with Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. By means of the present criminal writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “(a) A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to register the FIR against the private respondent and further investigate in accordance with law. (b) A writ, order or direction in nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide the representation dated 17.11.2024 in accordance with law (annexure-1 to the writ petition).” 4. In substance by filing the instant writ petition, petitioner wants this Court to direct the respondent authorities to register the FIR against the private respondent and to investigate it. 5. This kind of writ petition cannot be entertained.
	Petitioner has got remedy for it under the law, in
	particular, under Section 175(3) of BNSS [Old Section
	156(3) Cr.P.C.] to approach the Magistrate of
	competent jurisdiction to issue such a direction, but that
	too can be availed only when the attempt for
	registration of FIR by the SHO concerned, and,
	thereafter, SSP has resulted into a futile exercise. From the pleadings in the writ petition, there is nothing to

¶2

¶3

suggest that petitioner ever approached Police Station
concerned for lodging of an FIR.
6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is quite
frivolous and deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
7. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.03.2025 AK

Malvi Dua v. Superintendent of Police Distt. Nainital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malvi Dua v. Superintendent of Police Distt. Nainital

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangam Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepak Pal and Ors. Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ajay Mittal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Gendan Lal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shabeena Noor Vs State of Uttarakhand