A petitioner alleging police inaction may pursue the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS.

The petitioner alleged that private respondents had fraudulently entered their names in revenue records and executed a sale deed concerning land claimed by the petitioner’s family. He also alleged threats and physical assault.

After complaints to the police and the Senior Superintendent of Police allegedly yielded no effective action, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking consideration of the complaints, registration of an FIR, a fair investigation, and protection for his family.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner could seek an order from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue a writ petition seeking police action when the statutory remedy under Section 175(3) of the BNSS is available before the competent Magistrate.

Whether the Court should express any view on the merits of the allegations or the requested relief at this stage.

Article 226 of the Constitution empowers the High Court to issue writs, but where a statutory remedy is available, the Court may direct the petitioner to pursue that remedy in the first instance. Section 175(3) of the BNSS provides a remedy before the competent Magistrate in relation to a request for police action.

The Court did not rely on any cited precedent or determine the legal merits of the allegations.

The petitioner sought writ relief on the basis that the complaints disclosed cognizable offences and the police had failed to act. The State identified Section 175(3) of the BNSS as an available statutory remedy.

In view of that remedy, the Court considered it appropriate for the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate, without assessing the allegations or expressing an opinion on their merits.

It directed that any such application be considered and decided in accordance with law and without influence from observations in the order. The Court expressed no opinion on the merits of the allegations; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.