Seema Patel vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Ors.

The petitioner has preferred the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 3, in not taking cognizance of and registering an FIR on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner (Annexure P-1) regarding the loss of her mobile phone. The petitioner further submits that she had been using the aforesaid mobile phone for carrying out various financial transactions and apprehends that the said mobile phone may be misused for conducting unauthorized financial transactions or committing other cyber-related offences, thereby exposing her to potential financial loss and legal complications.

Learned counsel for the State submits that there is an alternative remedy available under the law for petitioner herein.

In view of the foregoing, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has alternative remedy available to him under the law, including recourse to the jurisdiction of the competent Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for an order directing investigation, and under Section 223 of BNSS, in respect of examination of complainant by a Magistrate.

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of, reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to avail the remedies available to him under the aforesaid provisions, in accordance with law.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.