Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra
Supreme Court of India, 4 May 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 442
A High Court should not ordinarily, under Article 226, direct registration of an FIR when the complainant has not first used the remedies under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS; the interim order and the FIR registered under it were quashed.
Facts
The complainant company owned a resort property in Nashik district and was in civil litigation with its lessees, including the appellants, over a sub-lease. It alleged that in 2025 the accused filed a land measurement application in its name with forged documents and that a woman impersonated its Director at the survey. Its complaints to the Land Records office led only to a letter to the police, who returned the matter to that office. Without approaching the Superintendent of Police or a Magistrate, the company filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court seeking registration of an FIR. By an interim order of 17.12.2025, without notice, the High Court directed that the Director's statement be recorded and action taken as per law. An FIR under several BNS sections was then registered, and the accused appealed.
Questions before the Court
- Can a High Court under Article 226 direct the police to register an FIR when the complainant has not first availed the alternative remedies provided by law?
What the Court held
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is wide but extraordinary, discretionary and subject to self-imposed restraint where an efficacious alternative remedy exists. A person whose FIR is not registered, or not properly investigated, should ordinarily use the statutory framework, unless the urgency of the circumstances warrants otherwise.
- The BNSS provides a sequential mechanism: registration of an FIR under Section 173(1), recourse to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) on refusal, and then to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).
- The complainant company invoked writ jurisdiction directly without using these remedies or showing them unavailable or inefficacious, and there was no imminent danger to life or liberty. Entertaining the petition made the High Court a forum of first instance, bypassing the statutory scheme. The writ petition was premature.
- The interim order and the FIR registered under it were set aside, with liberty to the parties to pursue alternative remedies, and without any opinion on the merits.
Why it matters
The judgment applies the rule in Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe to the BNSS, setting out the sequence of remedies under Sections 173(1), 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS that a complainant must ordinarily exhaust before seeking a writ for registration of an FIR. It also quashes an FIR registered pursuant to an interim writ direction issued without notice, leaving the complainant to its statutory remedies.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available. 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.”
“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 High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory authority. Ordinarily, where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the complainant Company, has not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. The State of Maharashtra
- Case
- Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1088 of 2026), with Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1133 of 2026)
- Decided
- 4 May 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court delivered by Sanjay Karol, J.
Questions on this case
1 question in live Law Maker papers mentions this case. Practise them with the landmark judgments questions.