W.P.(CRL)/2658/2026 of CHARANJEEV MALHOTRA Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS. on 2 September 2026

O R D E R

% 02.09.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode. CRL.M.A. 26976/2026 (for exemption)

2. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

3. The present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS’), seeking, inter alia, a direction to respondent No.1/Commissioner of Police to initiate appropriate action against respondent No.3/ASI Subhash Chand on the allegations of dereliction of duty and criminal intimidation. The petitioner also seeks calling of a status report regarding the action taken on his complaints.

4. The grievance of the petitioner emanates from complaints made by him in December, 2023 against one Mangal, alleging, inter alia, threats to his life, abuse and damage to his property. On account of non-registration of an FIR, the petitioner approached the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in Complaint Case No. 989/2024.

5. The record reflects that an NCR under Section 506 IPC had been registered by the police. The learned CJM, vide order dated 27.06.2025, considered the prayer of the petitioner seeking registration of an FIR as well as the Action Taken Report (‘ATR’) filed by the police. Upon consideration of the material placed before it, the learned CJM recorded that no cognizable offence was found to be made out and, accordingly, did not direct registration of an FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.

6. The learned CJM, however, considering the allegations made by the petitioner, directed the SHO concerned to investigate the NCR in terms of Section 155 Cr.P.C. and, while doing so, to also take into account the allegations relating to Section 506 Part II IPC and mischief, along with all the material furnished by the petitioner, and to file a report before the said Court.

7. Thus, the grievance of the petitioner concerning non-registration of an FIR has already been considered by the competent Court. The learned CJM, while not directing registration of an FIR, has directed investigation of the NCR and continues to remain seized of Complaint Case No. 989/2024.

8. On a query from the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned CJM has not been assailed by the petitioner by way of a revision petition.

9. In Mamta Nagpal v. State of Delhi & Ors., 2023:DHC:1921, this Court has held that an order of a Magistrate refusing to exercise jurisdiction under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. cannot be termed as interlocutory and is amenable to challenge by way of revision. Further, in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Supreme Court has recognised the wide powers of the Magistrate to ensure a proper investigation and has observed that where a grievance concerns non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation, the High Court ought ordinarily not to be approached without availing the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C.

10. In the present case, the petitioner has already availed the remedy before the learned CJM. The order dated 27.06.2025 has not been challenged in revision and the proceedings pursuant thereto remain pending before the learned CJM. The status report dated 31.10.2025 placed on record also acknowledges the direction dated 27.06.2025 and states that the report would be submitted before the learned CJM upon completion of investigation.

11. In these circumstances, insofar as the grievance of the petitioner pertains to the investigation of the NCR or compliance with the order dated 27.06.2025, the same can appropriately be raised before the learned CJM, who continues to remain seized of the matter. No circumstance is made out warranting exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in parallel with the proceedings pending before the competent Court.

12. Insofar as the prayer seeking initiation of departmental action against respondent No. 3 is concerned, the same is founded upon the petitioner’s allegations that respondent No. 3 threatened him, failed to properly investigate the matter and acted in collusion with the accused. The petitioner has also approached the competent police authorities by way of representations raising these allegations. The allegations made against respondent No. 3 would necessarily require factual verification and cannot, merely on the basis of the assertions made in the present petition, warrant issuance of a writ directing initiation of departmental proceedings against him.

13. For the same reasons, no ground is made out for calling for a status report in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

14. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

15. It is clarified that nothing stated in this order shall be construed as an expression on the merits of Complaint Case No. 989/2024 pending before the learned CJM or on the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No. 3. The proceedings before the learned CJM shall continue in accordance with law.

16. The order be uploaded on the website forthwith. MADHU JAIN, J SEPTEMBER 2, 2026/m