High Court Should Not Direct FIR Registration Under Article 226 When BNSS Provides Statutory Remedies Before Police and Magistrate

Case Name: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Citation: 2026 INSC 442

Date of Judgment/Order: 4 May 2026

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Held: The Supreme Court held that although the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, it should not ordinarily be invoked to direct registration of an FIR when the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 provides a complete and efficacious statutory mechanism. The Court held that a complainant alleging police inaction must first follow the sequential remedies under the BNSS: place information before the officer-in-charge under Section 173(1), approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) if the FIR is not registered, and thereafter approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3). Direct recourse to Article 226 for FIR registration, without exhausting these remedies and without exceptional urgency such as imminent danger to life or liberty, is premature and contrary to settled law.

Summary: The dispute arose from commercial and property-related conflicts concerning a leisure resort project known as E&G Green Valley at Gut No.82, Mouje Talwade, Trimbakeshwar, District Nashik. The complainant company alleged that the accused persons, including the appellants, used forged documents and fabricated signatures to submit a measurement application in the company’s name and that a woman impersonated the company’s director during the revenue survey. The complainant company first approached the Land Records Authority, which advised it to seek redressal before the competent authority, and the police also returned the matter for further inquiry by the Land Records Department. Instead of exhausting remedies under the BNSS, the complainant company directly filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking a direction for registration of offences. The High Court, without issuing notice, directed the company’s director to appear before the police for recording of statement and directed action in accordance with law, pursuant to which FIR No.0194/2025 was registered. The Supreme Court relied on Radha Krishan Industries, Sakiri Vasu, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe and related authorities to hold that Article 226 is not a substitute for the statutory criminal process and that the High Court should not act as the first forum for FIR registration where efficacious remedies exist.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Bombay High Court’s interim order dated 17 December 2025, and quashed FIR No.0194/2025 registered pursuant to that order. The Court reserved liberty to the parties to pursue appropriate alternative remedies in accordance with law, clarifying that any such recourse shall be considered on its own merits by the competent forum. The Court further clarified that nothing in the judgment should be treated as an opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether the facts disclose commission of any criminal offence. Pending applications were disposed of.