logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 DHC 230 print Preview print print
Court : High Court of Delhi
Case No : W.P.(CRL). No. 1138 of 2026
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
Parties : Anita Versus State Of NCT Delhi & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: Shailendra Mani Tripathi, Pooja Shilpkar, P. Raghab Mishra, Manisha Yadav, Praveen Kumar Mishra, Vishal Kumar, Advocates. For the Respondents: Yasir Rauf Ansari, ASC, Alok Sharma, Advocate.
Date of Judgment : 09-04-2026
Head Note :-
Comparative Citation:
2026 DHC 2972,
Judgment :-

Judgment (Oral)

1. For convenience, the prayer clause of the petition is extracted below:

          "In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner herein most humbly prays that this hon'ble court may be pleased to:

          A. Direct the respondent no 2 to take appropriate action on representation/ complaint of the petitioner dated 13.02.2026 which is annexed with this petition as annexure P-1, in the compliance of the direction of Hon'ble supreme court regarding Lalita Kumari versus State of UP [2013] 14 S.C.R. 713 read with section 173 of BNSS 2023.

          B. Direct the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate action accordance with law against erring officers for deliberate negligence.

          C. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice."

          (emphasis supplied)

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his prayer in the present case is not for registration of FIR, but only for appropriate action on his complaint. That being so, learned ASC for State appearing on advance intimation submits that they are already acting on the complaint/representation of the petitioner in accordance with law and inquiry is already being conducted to ascertain if any cognizable offence is made out from the complaint.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that police has no power to decide whether the complaint makes out a cognizable offence or not and it is only the complainant, who shall decide if a cognizable offence is made out or not.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner wants to refer to some notification, but copy of that notification has not even been filed.

5. Prima facie, the petition appears to be completely frivolous because the petitioner is conscious that she cannot file a petition seeking registration of FIR without exhausting the remedies available in law. Besides, I have also gone through the complaint dated 13.02.2026 of the petitioner. Since the issue is yet to be examined by the competent court of Magistrate, I would refrain from recording my view as to whether any cognizable offence is made out or not.

6. The petition is completely devoid of merit and frivolous, therefore, dismissed.
 
  CDJLawJournal