Case Name: SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANOTHER  v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Petition Number: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1088/1133 of 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 442
Date of Judgment: 04.05.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Relevant Provisions: Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 173 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, Section 175 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita

INTRODUCTION

This case engages with the question whether the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked as a first resort to secure the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) in the presence of alternative statutory remedies. The Supreme Court unequivocally held that such jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a matter of first resort to obtain directions for FIR registration and emphasised that that recourse must initially be had to the mechanisms contemplated under relevant statutes and that the writ jurisdiction, being discretionary and extraordinary in nature cannot be deployed to bypass these statutory safeguards.

FACTS

The appellants had preferred the present appeal against an order of the Bombay High Court directing the police to record the statement of the Director of the Complainant Company and initiate necessary action as per provisions of law. The dispute concerned a property purchased by the complainant company in 2010 and developed into a resort which was leased to M/s. E & G Resorts Pvt. Ltd., another Company. The complainant company was subsequently marked as a non-performing asset and a statutory moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 came into force. 

It was alleged that during the subsistence of the moratorium, M/s. E&G Resorts Pvt. Ltd., executed a sub-lease deed in favour of another party. Consequently, multiple civil suits were instituted between the parties, including suits challenging the validity of the sub-lease deed and seeking an injunction from creating encumbrances or third-party rights.

The criminal allegations arose later (2024–2025), when the accused allegedly used forged documents to apply for and conduct a property measurement, including impersonation of the company’s director. Despite complaints, authorities did not initiate action, leading the complainant to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking FIR registration. Pursuant to High Court directions, an FIR was registered, which the appellants have now challenged as procedurally improper and motivated by ongoing civil disputes.

ISSUE

Whether under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law?

JUDGMENT AND ANALYSIS

The court accepted the fact that jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is wide, but emphasised that it is extraordinary, discretionary and subject to certain self-imposed restrictions.  It laid emphasis on the judgment in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P [(2021) 6 SCC 771] which held that the High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition and one of the instances where there is scope to exercise such discretion is where an effective alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. The court emphasised 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. The court had also carved out limited exceptions to the rule of alternate remedies to situations where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation itself were challenged. The present case did not satisfy any of the following exceptions. 

The court found that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. It mentioned that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then 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 warrant otherwise.

The alternative statutory framework available in this regard is the Bhariya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita which contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate, under Section 175(3) BNSS. 

In the present case, it was evident from the record that the complainant Company initially approached the Land Record Authority, by way of complaints with copies thereof being sent to the police authority. However, they did not avail any of the statutory remedies provided under BNSS and instead directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, seeking directions for registration of an FIR. The court found such a recourse, in the first instance, as contrary to the settled principles of law and therefore quashed the directions as improper. 

CONCLUSION
The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are very wide in their amplitude but they are not a panacea for all grievances. The High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction. Since the complainant Company in the present matter had not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS, the instant writ petition was found to be premature, and, therefore, unfit to be entertained.