W.P.(CRL)/3009/2026 of RIZWAN QURESHI Vs STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. on 24 September 2026

O R D E R

%

24.09.2026

1. The Petitioner claims to be a bona fide purchaser and to be in possession of property bearing No. 4509/7, Trilok Bhawan, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi. He alleges that Ishan Jain, M.S. Khan and their associates have been threatening to dispossess him forcibly from the property and that there is also a threat to his life and personal safety.

2. According to the Petitioner, on 13th September, 2026, about 20-25 persons, some of whom were carrying lathis and iron rods, came to the property and attempted to forcibly dispossess him, compelling him to make a PCR call at about 4:18 p.m. He alleges that threats were repeated on 14th September, 2026, when he approached P.S. Darya Ganj. The Petitioner further alleges that, upon leaving the police station, M.S. Khan demanded ₹2

crores from him and threatened him with serious consequences if he continued to visit or assert rights over the property. Reference is also made to an incident of 17th September, 2026, when, according to the Petitioner, a pistol was displayed, and further threats were made. A written complaint dated 17th/18th September, 2026, addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Central District, has been placed on record.

3. The Court expresses no opinion on, the genuineness or correctness of these allegations. Insofar as the grievance concerns non-registration of an FIR, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20231 provides a specific statutory remedy. An informant aggrieved by refusal of the officer-in-charge to record information may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) and, if the grievance persists, move the competent Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. The Petitioner is at liberty to avail of those remedies in accordance with law. The Supreme Court has recently, in Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.2, reiterating the principle laid down in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.3, held that, ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction. No direction for registration of an FIR is, therefore, called for in these proceedings.

4. The prayer for protection stands on a different footing. The dispute concerning title to, or possession of, the property cannot be decided by the police, nor can a direction for protection be used to secure an advantage in that dispute. At the same time, the allegations made by the Petitioner include repeated threats to his life and personal safety, an attempted forcible entry 1 “BNSS” 2 2026 INSC 442

by a group allegedly carrying weapons, and the display of a pistol. These allegations require the police to discharge their preventive functions in accordance with law. Sections 168 to 170 of the BNSS recognise the duty and powers of the police to prevent cognizable offences.

5. Accordingly, the SHO, P.S. Darya Ganj, shall examine the complaint made by the Petitioner and assess the threat perception to the Petitioner and the persons residing with him. If the assessment discloses a threat requiring preventive or protective measures, such measures as are warranted in law shall be taken. The police shall also take appropriate steps to prevent any breach of peace or commission of a cognizable offence. It is made clear that this direction shall not be construed as recognising the title or possession of either side, nor shall the police enter upon or adjudicate the underlying civil dispute concerning the property.

6. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.

SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 24, 2026 as

3 (2008) 2 SCC 409