High Court cannot direct FIR registration after police investigation; the complainant may pursue remedies before the Magistrate.

The petitioner alleged that respondents No.4 to 7 forcibly entered his family’s land and house on 10.11.2025, assaulted him with a kirpan and datar, and caused grievous injuries, including severance of a finger and a head injury.

Although his injuries were recorded in the medico-legal report and subsequently opined to be grievous, no cross-case was registered against the private respondents.

The petitioner’s father submitted a complaint to the Senior Superintendent of Police, but the police allegedly took no effective action.

During the petitioner’s custody in a case registered at the instance of the private respondents, his statement was recorded on 25.02.2026, setting out the allegations against them.

The State produced a status report stating that the petitioner’s version had been examined and that Daily General Diary Entry No.29 dated 25.02.2026 had been recorded; the investigating agency found the allegations doubtful and did not initiate further criminal action.

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to pass orders necessary to give effect to the criminal process, prevent abuse of process, or secure the ends of justice.

The Court held that such extraordinary jurisdiction cannot ordinarily be used to substitute the High Court’s assessment for that of the competent investigating agency or to direct registration of a criminal case solely on the basis of disputed factual allegations, particularly where the allegations have already been examined during investigation.

It further recognised that an adverse police decision does not extinguish the complainant’s statutory remedies before the Judicial Magistrate having jurisdiction.

The Court found that the petitioner’s allegations had not been ignored: his statement was recorded during investigation, the surrounding circumstances were examined, and the investigating agency recorded G.D. No.29 dated 25.02.2026.

The agency considered the injuries suspicious and found that they might have been caused in self-defence or could even have been self-inflicted to create a defence.

Since the dispute involved rival factual versions and the petitioner’s allegations had already been assessed by the investigating agency, the Court declined to reassess the evidence or compel registration of a criminal case in its inherent jurisdiction.

At the same time, the Court preserved the petitioner’s right to approach the Judicial Magistrate under the remedies available in law, leaving that court to independently assess the matter.

The Court held that no direction for registration of a criminal case or further police action was warranted because the petitioner’s version had already been considered during investigation and involved disputed factual questions.

The petitioner was granted liberty to avail an appropriate remedy before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class or otherwise in accordance with law, with the Magistrate directed to consider any such remedy independently and on its own merits.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of as infructuous.