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.

Cause Title: SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 453

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mrs. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nilesh Tribhuvann, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mr. Burzin Bharucha, Adv. Mr. Rohit Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Pururaj Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Dahiya, Adv. Ms. Prashansika Thakur, Adv. Ms. Janvi Desai, Adv. Mr. Shahrukh Ahmad, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, AOR