High Court cannot direct registration of FIR under Art. 226 without exhaustion of statutory remedies under BNSS

on

Facts

The dispute arose from commercial dealings concerning a resort property in Nashik. The complainant company alleged that during the subsistence of a statutory moratorium under s. 14 IBC, the accused executed a sub-lease and later engaged in acts of forgery and impersonation in April 2025 to secure property measurement and assert control.

Complaints were made to the Land Records Authority, which declined action and advised approaching a competent forum. The police also refrained from acting, returning the matter for departmental inquiry.

Instead of pursuing remedies under the criminal procedure framework, the complainant directly filed a writ petition under Art. 226 Const. of India seeking registration of an FIR. The High Court, by an interim order, directed recording of the complainant’s statement and “necessary action,” pursuant to which FIR No. 0194/2025 was registered under multiple provisions of BNS 2023.

The accused challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed
Whether a writ under Art. 226 Const. of India can be invoked to direct registration of an FIR without exhausting statutory remedies under criminal law.

Court’s Reasoning

(a) The Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction is “extraordinary, discretionary and subject to self-imposed restrictions,” particularly where an effective alternative remedy exists (Para 5).

(b) Relying on Radha Krishan Industries and Thansingh Nathmal, the Court emphasized that where a statute provides a complete mechanism, “resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy” (Para 5).

(c) On non-registration of FIRs, the Court quoted Sakiri Vasu (Para 6), holding that remedies lie sequentially before authorities under criminal procedure—first police, then superior officers, and then Magistrate. High Courts “should ordinarily refuse to interfere” in such matters.

(d) The Court noted the statutory scheme under s. 173(1), s. 173(4), s. 175(3) BNSS, providing a structured mechanism for FIR registration and investigation (Para 8).

(e) Applying the law, the Court found that the complainant “did not avail any of the statutory remedies… and instead directly invoked the writ jurisdiction” (Para 9). No exceptional circumstances (such as violation of fundamental rights or lack of jurisdiction) were shown.

(f) Entertaining the writ would allow bypassing the statutory scheme and convert the High Court into a forum of first instance, which is “impermissible” (Para 10).

Held
The impugned interim order of the High Court was set aside and FIR No. 0194/2025 quashed. Liberty was granted to pursue remedies under the statutory framework.

Ratio
A writ under Art. 226 Const. of India cannot ordinarily be invoked to seek registration of an FIR without first exhausting statutory remedies under s. 173 & s. 175 BNSS, absent exceptional circumstances.Case Details

Citation: 2026 INSC 442
Decided on: 4 May 2026
Case Title: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Augustine George Masih, J.