WP(C)/4581/2026 of USUF ALI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS on 25 August 2026

ORDER

Date : 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam for the respondent nos. 1-5.

2. The petitioner has projected that the petitioner stating that cognizable offences have been committed lodged an FIR before the Officer In-Charge, Bilasipara Police Station on 04.07.2026 stating that cognizable offences have been committed by the accused persons named therein. It is stated that the Officer In-Charge, Bilasipara Police Station despite receipt of the FIR, did not register the same inspite of the fact that the FIR disclosed commission of Cognizable Offences. The petitioner has stated that thereafter, he forwarded a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Dubri by post on 05.08.2026. As no action has been taken either by the Officer In-Charge, Bilasipara Police Station or the Superintendent of Police, Dhubri, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking inter-alia a direction to the respondent authorities to consider and act upon the FIR the petitioner has submitted on 04.07.2026 and to register the FIR if the information mentioned therein had disclosed cognizable offences and to conduct a fair, impartial and effective investigation in accordance with law.

3. On a query made to the learned counsel for the petitioner, whether any approach is made by the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of Section 156[3], CrPC or Section 173[4], Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] r/w Section 175[3], BNSS , the learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner has not yet approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under the afore-stated provision of law.

4. Having regard to the observations and directions made in the decision of Supreme Court in Sakari Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, [2008] 2 SCC 409; Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, [2016] 6 SCC 277; and Sujal Viswas Attavar and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others, [2026] 5 SCR 273; and the provisions contained in Section 156[3], CrPC and/or Section 173[4], BNSS r/w Section 175[3], BNSS, this Court is of the unhesitant view that this writ petition is not to be entertained as the petitioner has not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate till date.

5. The writ petition is, therefore, not entertained. While not entertaining the present writ petition, it is observed that the petitioner as an aggrieved person has the liberty to avail the remedy under the BNSS by approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 173[4], BNSS r/w Section 175[3], BNSS by following due procedure and formalities as laid down in those provisions.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant