Disposed¶¶9

Amit Sarkar v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC7 Jul 2026WPCRL/693/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Non-registration of FIR; inaction on complaint and representation dated 26.02.2026; Section 173(4) B.N.S.S.; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; alternative statutory remedy before jurisdictional Magistrate; Article 226 maintainability at first instance; writ petition disposed with liberty; Code of Criminal Procedure; Uttarakhand High Court; WPCRL/693/2026; Amit Sarkar v. State Of Uttarakhand; Alok Mahra, J.; neutral citation 2026:UHC:5468.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy before the competent Court/Magistrate; any such application to be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶¶9

Amit Sarkar Vs State of Uttarakhand — Writ and Judicial Review | Uttarakhand HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable at the first instance when an efficacious statutory alternative remedy is available before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the B.N.S.S. for redressal of non-registration of an FIR. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

Where the police fail to register an FIR or fail to conduct a proper investigation, an efficacious statutory remedy is available before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; ordinarily, when such an alternative remedy is available, the Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 would not entertain a writ petition at the first instance.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available before the competent Magistrate, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on merits.

¶¶9

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law before the competent Court; in the event any such application is filed, it shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order.ratio¶¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand (Alok Mahra, J.), order dated 07.07.2026 in WPCRL/693/2026, Amit Sarkar v. State Of Uttarakhand: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sought mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the petitioner's complaint/representation dated 26.02.2026 in accordance with Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S., to register an FIR thereon and to conduct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation, the grievance being police inaction on the complaint and representation. The State contended an efficacious statutory remedy lay before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the B.N.S.S. Holding that where police fail to register an FIR or investigate, an efficacious statutory remedy is available before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and that ordinarily an Article 226 petition is not entertained at the first instance where such remedy exists, the Court declined to entertain the petition on merits since the statutory remedy had not been availed, reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek redressal before the competent Court with a direction for expeditious, law-bound consideration of any such application uninfluenced by observations in the order, and disposed of the petition and pending applications.

¶1

UKHC010062282026

¶2

2026:UHC:5468

¶3

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPCRL/693/2026 Amit Sarkar --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand --Respondent Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. D.N. Sharma and Ms. Manju Bahuguna, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. V.S. Pal, learned A.G.A. for the State.
			3. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent nos. 2 and 3 to consider and decide the complaint/ representation dated 26.02.2026 in accordance with the provisions of Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. (corresponding to the remedy available under the Code of Criminal Procedure) and to take appropriate action thereon within a time to be fixed by this Court. The petitioner has further prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to register a First Information Report on the basis of the said complaint and thereafter conduct a fair, impartial and expeditious investigation in accordance with law.
			4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that despite the

¶4

UKHC010062282026

¶5

2026:UHC:5468

¶6

petitioner having lodged a complaint
before the concerned police authorities
and thereafter having submitted a
representation to the superior police
authorities on 26.02.2026, no effective
action has been taken till date. It is
submitted that the inaction on the part
of the respondent authorities has
resulted in failure to discharge their
statutory obligations and has adversely
affected the administration of criminal
justice. It is further submitted that,
having failed to obtain any relief from
the police authorities, the petitioner
has invoked the extraordinary writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Per contra, learned State counsel
would oppose the writ petition and
submit that an efficacious and
statutory alternative remedy is
available to the petitioner under the
provisions of the B.N.S.S., by
approaching the jurisdictional
Magistrate with an appropriate
application seeking redressal of the
grievance regarding non-registration of
the First Information Report and for
consequential directions; that, without
availing the said statutory remedy, the
petitioner has directly approached this
Court, and, therefore, the present writ
petition is not maintainable.
6. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the material
available on record.
7. Upon consideration of the rival
submissions and the material placed on
record, this Court finds that the
principalgrievance ofthe petitioner

¶7

UKHC010062282026

¶8

2026:UHC:5468

¶9

relates to the alleged failure of the police authorities to register the First Information Report and to act upon the complaint submitted by the petitioner. The law is well settled that where the police fail to register an FIR or fail to conduct a proper investigation, an efficacious statutory remedy is available before the jurisdictional Magistrate under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Ordinarily, when such an alternative remedy is available, this Court, in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would not entertain a writ petition at the first instance. 8. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, since the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy available before the competent Magistrate, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition on merits. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to avail such remedy as may be available in law before the competent Court. In the event any such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law, without being influenced by any observation made in this order. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. 10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Alok Mahra, J.) MA Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF 07.07.2026 UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, mamta 2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e 584af1449e430ef900bf09a6d67ebb d642671329b, postalCode=263001, MTA st=Uttarakhand, serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd 54852c9e68911ca8b66dd26690a19 1648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA RANI Date: 2026.07.08 16:35:10 +05'30' RANI

Amit Sarkar v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amit Sarkar v. State of Uttarakhand

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

Zoyfa Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anuj Kumar Gupta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suresh Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Suhana Vs State of Uttarakhand

Rajendra Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abhishek Yadav Vs State of Uttarakhand