Summary
The High Court should not have entertained a writ petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR, or passed an interim order that led to the FIR, when the complainant had not used the remedies under the BNSS (approaching the Superintendent of Police and then the Magistrate) and there was no urgency or threat to life or liberty. The interim order was set aside and the FIR quashed, with liberty to pursue the statutory remedies.
Issues
- Whether, under Article 226, the High Court could direct the police to act on a complaint and register an FIR when the complainant had not first used the alternative remedies under the BNSS.
- Whether the FIR registered as a result of the High Court's interim order could stand.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaWrit jurisdiction is wide but discretionary and self-restrained; ordinarily it is not exercised where an equally efficacious statutory remedy exists, save for the exceptions in Radha Krishan Industries. It is not a forum of first instance for grievances about non-registration of an FIR. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Section 173(1) and (4), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023Information about a cognizable offence is first given to the officer in charge of the police station; on refusal to record it, the aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police. The complainant had not done so before filing the writ petition. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
- Section 175(3), Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023The next step in the sequential mechanism is an application to the Magistrate, who may order investigation; this remedy too was not used. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11)
- Sections 154(3) and 156(3), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Through Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, the Court reiterated that a person whose FIR is not registered should approach the Superintendent of Police and then the Magistrate rather than the High Court; the BNSS provisions are their successors. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 8)
Held
- Article 226 jurisdiction is discretionary and subject to self-imposed limits; ordinarily a writ petition is not entertained where an efficacious alternative remedy exists, and where a statute provides the remedy it must be exhausted first, subject to exceptions such as enforcement of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or a challenge to vires. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 11)
- A grievance that the police have not registered an FIR, or are not investigating properly, should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory framework and not by invoking writ jurisdiction in the first instance, unless urgency warrants otherwise (Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe followed). (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7)
- The BNSS provides a sequential mechanism: information to the officer in charge under Section 173(1), then the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and then the Magistrate under Section 175(3). (¶ 8)
- Having complained only to the land records authority and having approached neither the Superintendent of Police nor the Magistrate, with no material showing those remedies were unavailable or inefficacious and no imminent danger to life or liberty, the complainant could not go directly to the High Court. Entertaining the petition made the High Court a forum of first instance, bypassing the statutory scheme; the petition was premature. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11)
Result
Appeals allowed; the High Court's interim order dated 17.12.2025 set aside and FIR No. 0194/2025 registered pursuant to it quashed; liberty to the parties to pursue alternative remedies in accordance with law, to be considered on merits; no opinion expressed on whether any offence is disclosed.