The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a criminal writ petition seeking directions to police authorities to act on a pending representation, emphasizing that statutory remedies must be followed before approaching the High Court.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by Sandeep Audichya, who requested the Court to direct the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, to decide his representation dated August 19, 2025, within a fixed timeframe. The plea essentially sought intervention for registration and investigation of an alleged cognizable offence.
Read also:- Dowry Harassment Can Lead To Suicide, Not Always Murder: Delhi High Court Converts Conviction
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner argued that despite approaching the police authorities, no action had been taken, leaving the petitioner with no option but to invoke the Court’s writ jurisdiction.
The Bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi expressed concern over a growing trend where litigants directly approach the High Court for directions to authorities to “decide representations,” instead of using remedies available under law.
Read also:- Supreme Court Grants Divorce After 18-Year Separation, Sets Aside Foreign Decree in NRI Couple Dispute
“The practice has rendered this Court virtually powerless… where we are not required to decide anything,” the Bench remarked, highlighting the increasing burden of such petitions.
The Court then explained the legal framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). It noted that if a police station refuses to register information about a cognizable offence, the complainant can approach the Superintendent of Police. If that too fails, the proper course is to move the Judicial Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS for appropriate directions.
Read also:- Dying Declaration Can’t Be Ignored: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Husband in Wife Burning Case
Importantly, the Court acknowledged concerns about possible pressure on Magistrates but clarified that such apprehensions cannot justify bypassing the statutory process. It added that Magistrates have the authority to act independently and may seek protection from the High Court if needed.
Holding that an effective alternative remedy exists under the BNSS, the Court found no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction.
The petition was summarily dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate for relief in accordance with law.
Case Title: Sandeep Audichya vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Case Number: Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 1332 of 2026
Decision Date: March 9, 2026
