Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Seek FIR Registration Without Availing Statutory Remedies : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (May 4) has observed that Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be invoked at the first instance to seek direction for registration of an FIR. “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.”, observed a bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, while setting aside the Bombay High Court's direction to the Police to record complainant's statements and proceed for FIR registration. The complainant made a criminal allegation alleging that forged documents were used to apply for measurement of the property, and sought an action against Appellants who allegedly impersonated the company's director before the revenue authorities to facilitate such measurement. The complainant company initially approached the Land Records Authority, which, after hearing the parties, declined to take coercive action and advised the complainant to seek remedies before the appropriate forum. Though the matter was also brought to the notice of the police, no FIR was registered. Instead of pursuing remedies under the criminal procedure framework, the complainant directly approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 seeking directions to register an FIR. Aggrieved by the High Court's decision to direct FIR registration, the accused persons moved to the Supreme Court. Before the Supreme Court, the issue was 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. Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that the High Court erred in exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction to direct FIR registration, despite the availability of statutory remedies, not availed by the complainants under the criminal law framework. “In the present case, it is evident from the record that the complainant Company initially approached the Land Record Authority, by way of complaints dated 13.06.2025 and 09.07.2025, with copies thereof being sent to the police authority. However, it did not avail any of the statutory remedies provided under BNSS and instead directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, inter alia, seeking directions for registration of FIR. In our considered view, such a recourse, in the first instance, is contrary to the settled principles of law. 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 court observed. “It is not the case of the complainant Company that it had approached the concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate prior to filing the writ petition, nor has any material been placed on record to show that such remedies were unavailable or inefficacious. Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety.”, the court added. In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned decision was set aside, with liberty to the complainants to explore alternative remedies in accordance with law.HeadnoteConstitution of India, 1950 — Article 226 — Writ Jurisdiction — Exhaustion of Alternative Statutory Remedies — Registration of FIR — Held - The extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and subject to self-imposed restrictions - It ought not to be invoked for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) or proper investigation when alternative, equally efficacious sequential statutory remedies are available under the criminal procedure framework, unless justified by exceptional urgency or imminent danger to life or liberty - Entertaining such a writ petition in the first instance effectively results in the High Court acting as a forum of first instance, thereby completely bypassing the structured statutory scheme, which is impermissible.Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) — Section 173(1), Section 173(4), and Section 175(3) [erstwhile Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 154(1), Section 154(3), and Section 156(3)] — Sequential Mechanism for Criminal Prosecution — Held - The BNSS provides a structured, sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution - If an officer-in-charge of a police station refuses to register an FIR under Section 173(1) BNSS, the informant's recourse lies first in approaching the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, and subsequently, the competent...

Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Seek FIR Registration Without Availing Statutory Remedies : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances, the Court said.

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

Article 226 Can't Be Invoked To Seek FIR Registration Without Availing Statutory Remedies : Supreme Court

Yash Mittal

Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances, the Court said.

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Yash Mittal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers