Article 226 Not a Shortcut for FIR Registration, Remedies Under BNSS Must Be Exhausted First: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said that if a person’s FIR is not being registered by the police, or if proper investigation is not being carried out after registration, the person should first use the remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) instead of directly approaching the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Court clarified that the high court’s writ jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and cannot be treated as a solution for every grievance. It said that in cases where the police refuse to register an FIR, a person must first approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), BNSS ((corresponding to Section 154 of the CrPC) and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS (corresponding to Section 156 of the CrPC) before invoking Article 226, unless there are urgent or exceptional circumstances.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih made the observations while allowing an appeal filed by Sujal Vishwas Attavar and another against a Bombay High Court order which had led to registration of an FIR against them.

Can the high court direct registration of FIR under Article 226 without exhausting remedies under BNSS?

The Supreme Court answered this in the negative and said that ordinarily such directions should not be issued when equally effective statutory remedies are available under the BNSS.

“While the jurisdiction of the high court under Article 226 of the Constitution is wide, such jurisdiction is extraordinary, discretionary and subject to certain self-imposed restrictions,” the Bench observed.

Court further underscored that the high court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because allegations of inaction or negligence are made against a statutory authority. It reiterated that where a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, such remedies must ordinarily be exhausted first.

As per the case facts, E & G Global Estates Ltd through its Director Asha Shivajirao Sanap had filed complaints before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Office, Trimbakeshwar in 2025 alleging forgery, impersonation and fraud in relation to a measurement application and sought registration of an FIR.

The Land Records Authority considered the matter and conducted a hearing but later declined to take coercive action and advised the complainant to approach the competent authority for redressal.

The complainant company thereafter approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226. Without issuing notice, the high court directed the police to record the statement of the company’s Director and take action in accordance with law. Pursuant to the direction, the police registered an FIR on December 23, 2025 against the appellants under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Why did the Supreme Court say the writ petition was premature?

Court noted that the complainant company had not availed the statutory remedies provided under the BNSS before directly approaching the high court.

“Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances,” the Bench said while observing that there was no material on record to show that remedies before the Superintendent of Police or Magistrate were unavailable or ineffective.

Court further said that entertaining such writ petitions at the first instance would effectively make the high court a forum of first instance and bypass the statutory framework entirely, which is impermissible except in special circumstances.

Holding that the complainant company had failed to exhaust the sequential remedies available under the BNSS, the Bench said there was no basis for invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the high court.

“Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to be premature, and, therefore, not fit to be entertained,” Court held while setting aside the high court order and quashing the FIR.

Court, however, granted liberty to the parties to avail alternative remedies available under law.

Case Title: Sujal Vishwas Attavar and Another Vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors

Bench: Justices Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih

Date of Judgment: May 4, 2026