Anil Chandra Bharali vs The State Of Assam & Ors.

Heard Ms. S Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam, appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7.

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the Respondent Authorities in registering an FIR so submitted by the Petitioner and further carrying out the investigation, thereupon.

This Court duly takes note that on 18.05.2026, notice was issued by this Court. The Respondent No. 7 has filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition, wherein it is mentioned that upon receipt of the complaint dated 06.04.2026, a GD Entry No. 49 dated 06.04.2026, was made and an enquiry under Section 175(3)(i) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023 was directed after obtaining the approval from the competent superior authority, namely, the A.C.P, Basistha. It is further mentioned that the Sub-Inspector was entrusted to ascertain whether the allegations disclosed commission of any cognizable offence, warranting the registration and investigation. During the course of the enquiry, it revealed that the dispute substantially related to possession and rival claims over landed properties. It was also mentioned that the enquiry also disclosed that simultaneously, the allegations attracted Section 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, (BNS), 2023 which is a non-cognizable offence. Consequently, in compliance with the statutory mandate, the Petitioner was informed by a communication dated 20.04.2026 that the Respondent No. 7 could not proceed with the investigation of a non-cognizable offence without the permission of the learned jurisdictional Magistrate, Kamrup (M).

In addition to that, the Enquiry Officer submitted a Petition dated 22.04.2026 before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M), seeking permission under Section 174(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, to proceed with the investigation of the non-cognizable offence. The matter is presently awaiting appropriate orders from the learned Court. The said application so filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup (M) has been enclosed as Annexure-B to the said affidavit.

This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record.

The grievance of the Petitioner herein is that the Petitioner having submitted an FIR before the Respondent No. 4 on 06.04.2026, and subsequently, no action was taken for registration of the said FIR, and it is under such circumstances, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

This Court duly takes note of that Section 175(3) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, (BNSS), 2023, is pari-materia to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C) 1973 whereby the Petitioner has a statutory remedy to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. This Court finds it very pertinent to take note of the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sakiri Vasu Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 whereby the Supreme Court had categorically observed that the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in matters of the present kind ought not to be entertained in view of the availability of the remedy in terms with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, (Cr.P.C) 1973.

Considering the above proposition of law as well as the stand so taken in the affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 4, this Court is of the opinion that the present case is not a fit case for being entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Before parting with the records, this Court however observes that the dismissal of the instant Writ Petition is on the ground of the same being not entertained and under such circumstances, the Petitioner herein shall not be prejudiced in any future proceedings in connection with the allegations so made. In addition to that the Petitioner would be at liberty to approach the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate, if so advised.