Mandamus for FIR and inventory oversight refused as company officials are competent to verify stock internally.

The petitioner, Director of Syndicate Movers Pvt. Ltd., sought a writ of mandamus to compel the police to lodge an FIR based on his application dated 26.11.2025 against his Branch Manager, Manish Kumar

The petitioner alleged that the Manager fled after locking the company’s Gaya godown, potentially misappropriating consignments, including sarees belonging to Dalmiya Synthetics

Conversely, an FIR (Kotwali P.S. Case No. 566 of 2025) had already been instituted by the proprietor of Dalmiya Synthetics against both the petitioner and the Branch Manager for misappropriation

The SHO had advised the petitioner to break the lock and check the inventory himself, but the petitioner moved the HC fearing implication for theft if items were found missing

1. Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing the police to register a specific FIR at the instance of the petitioner and oversee the inventory of a private godown

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to judicial protection or police presence for opening his own commercial premises when an investigation is already pending against him

The court applied the general principles governing the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which requires a clear legal duty on the part of the authority and a corresponding legal right of the petitioner.

The court further relied on the principle that police cannot be compelled to perform administrative inventory tasks for private companies, and that the remedy for non-registration of an FIR lies in alternative statutory procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure (now BNSS), rather than a writ petition when the claims are vague or already subject to an existing investigation.

The court reasoned that because an FIR (Case No. 566 of 2025) covering the same transaction had already been registered naming the petitioner as an accused, the petitioner’s proper course of action is to cooperate with that investigation to "come clean"

The court observed that the petitioner’s request for the police to unlock the godown and verify goods was misplaced; as a company official, the petitioner is the competent authority to manage his own inventory and premises

The court found the petitioner’s claims for a separate FIR to be based on "vague averments" regarding missing articles, and held that the police are not required to act as witnesses for a private inventory check necessitated by internal management failures

The Court answered the issues by stating that a mandamus cannot be issued for such private administrative tasks. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal recourse in the pending criminal proceeding or other lawful avenues