The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court direction for FIR registration, holding that a complainant must ordinarily first pursue remedies under the criminal procedure framework unless urgent circumstances justify writ intervention.
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope Of Article 226
The Supreme Court on Monday, May 4, held that a person cannot directly invoke Article 226 of the Constitution to seek registration of an FIR.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih said that a complainant must first use the statutory remedies available under criminal law.
The Bench observed:
“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 Court made these observations while setting aside a Bombay High Court direction to the police. The High Court had directed the police to record the complainant’s statements and proceed with FIR registration.
Complaint Alleged Forged Documents And Impersonation
The case arose from a criminal complaint filed by a company.
The company alleged that forged documents had been used to seek measurement of its property.
It also sought action against the appellants. According to the company, they had impersonated its director before the revenue authorities to facilitate the property measurement.
The complainant first approached the Land Records Authority.
After hearing the parties, the authority declined to take coercive action. Instead, it advised the complainant to pursue remedies before the appropriate forum.
Complainant Directly Approached Bombay High Court
The complainant also brought the matter to the notice of the police.
However, the police did not register an FIR.
Thereafter, the complainant approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226.
It sought directions for registration of an FIR.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the accused persons approached the Supreme Court.
Issue Before The Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered whether a High Court can direct registration of an FIR under Article 226 when the complainant has not first used alternative remedies.
The Court answered this issue against the complainant.
It held that a person should not ordinarily treat writ jurisdiction as the first remedy for FIR registration.
High Court Erred In Exercising Writ Jurisdiction
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction.
Justice Sanjay Karol authored the judgment.
The Court noted that the complainant had statutory remedies under the criminal law framework. However, it did not use those remedies before filing the writ petition.
The Court observed:
“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.”
The Court further said:
“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.”
High Court Cannot Act As Forum Of First Instance
The Supreme Court also noted that the complainant had not approached the concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate before filing the writ petition.
It found no material to show that those remedies were unavailable or ineffective.
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.”
The Court added that entertaining such a writ petition would make the High Court a forum of first instance.
According to the Bench, that approach would bypass the entire statutory scheme.
Appeal Allowed With Liberty To Pursue Remedies
In view of these findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal.
It set aside the Bombay High Court’s impugned decision.
However, the Court granted liberty to the complainants to pursue alternative remedies in accordance with law.
Case Details
Cause Title:
Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Citation:
2026 LiveLaw (SC) 453
Bench:
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
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.
