The Supreme Court has set aside an FIR registered pursuant to directions issued by the Bombay High Court, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked to seek registration of an FIR without first exhausting statutory remedies.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih allowed appeals filed by the accused, ruling that the High Court’s interim direction leading to registration of the FIR was contrary to settled legal principles.
Brief Facts
The dispute arose from a series of commercial transactions relating to a resort project. The property, developed into a leisure resort comprising multiple units, became the subject of lease arrangements and subsequent disputes among stakeholders.
Following insolvency proceedings initiated against the complainant company in 2020, allegations surfaced that certain parties executed a sub-lease during the moratorium period and began asserting control over the property, including collecting maintenance charges and making constructions.
Multiple civil proceedings were initiated between the parties, challenging the sub-lease, which remain pending.
The criminal allegations stem from events in 2025, when it was claimed that forged documents were used to submit an application for measurement of the property. It was further alleged that an individual impersonated the company’s director before the revenue authorities to facilitate the process.
A complaint was filed before the Land Records Authority, and registration of FIR was sought. However, no FIR was registered. The complainant then approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 seeking directions for registration of an FIR.
The High Court, by an interim order, directed the police to record the statement of the company’s director and take action. Pursuant to this, an FIR was registered against the appellants.
Supreme Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined whether a writ court can direct registration of an FIR without the complainant first availing alternative remedies under the statutory framework.
Reiterating settled law, the Court emphasised that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary, discretionary and subject to self-imposed limitations, particularly where effective alternative remedies exist.
The top court relied on its previous judgement in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., wherein it was held that, “When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and discretion.”
In another case, Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., the Apex Court held that, “we often find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters and relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy.”
In other precedents as well, it was opined that if the High Courts entertain such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such petitions and will not be able to do any other work.
The Supreme Court stated that a complainant must first approach the police authorities for registration of FIR under Section 173(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, then the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
The Court observed, “If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police… the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrants otherwise.”
The Court found that the complainant company had filed complaints at the Land Record Authority, with copies thereof being sent to the police authority. However, it failed to exhaust these remedies under the BNSS and instead directly approached the High Court, rendering the writ petition premature. “Particularly in the absence of imminent danger of violation of life or liberty of an individual. Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances,” the bench remarked.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeals, the Supreme Court:
- Held that the writ petition was not maintainable at the initial stage due to the availability of alternative remedies;
- Set aside the Bombay High Court’s interim order directing police action;
- Quashed FIR No. 0194/2025 registered pursuant to that order.
Case Title: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case Details: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1133 of 2026
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Judgement Date: May 4, 2026
Click here to read the Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
