Complainant Must Exhaust Statutory Remedies Under BNSS Before Approaching High Court For FIR: Supreme Court

"Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety," Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated May 4, 2026, held that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for the registration of an FIR without first exhausting the alternative statutory remedies provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that Article 226 is not a "panacea for all grievances" and should not be used to bypass the structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution.

The dispute arose from allegations of forgery and impersonation involving property measurement applications filed in the name of a complainant company. After the Land Records Authority and local police declined to take immediate coercive action, the complainant directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the Bombay High Court seeking registration of an FIR. The High Court, via an interim order, directed the police to record statements and take action, which resulted in the registration of an FIR against the appellants under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).

The primary question before the court was whether a direction could be given to State authorities to register an FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution without the applicant first taking recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law. The court also examined whether the High Court was justified in entertaining a writ petition in the absence of special circumstances or an imminent threat to life and liberty.

Writ Jurisdiction Is Discretionary And Subject To Self-Imposed Restrictions

The Supreme Court began by reiterating that while the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is wide, it is well-established that such power is extraordinary and discretionary. The bench noted that the High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition where an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person. This restriction is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a rule of law.

"The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self-imposed limitations. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute."

Exceptions To The Rule Of Alternative Remedy

Citing the precedent in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., the court clarified the specific exceptions where a writ petition can be entertained despite an alternative remedy. These include the enforcement of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, proceedings being wholly without jurisdiction, or a challenge to the vires of legislation. The court found that none of these exceptions were present in the current case, which primarily involved a property-related criminal grievance.

"Ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by law."

BNSS Provides A Structured Sequential Mechanism For FIR Registration

The bench emphasized that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides a structured sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. Under this framework, information regarding a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge under Section 173(1) BNSS. If the police refuse to register the FIR, the complainant must approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) and, subsequently, the Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

"The statutory framework contemplates that information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the officer-in-charge of the police station... In the event of refusal to register the FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police and, thereafter, before the Magistrate."

"The High Court should discourage the practice of filing a writ petition... simply because a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police."

High Court Cannot Act As A Forum Of First Instance

The Supreme Court expressed concern over the growing trend of litigants "rushing" to the High Court for FIR registration. Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, the bench held that High Courts should not be flooded with such petitions as it hampers their ability to perform other judicial work. It noted that the Magistrate has wide powers to ensure a proper investigation and monitor the same, making it the appropriate forum.

"Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety. This is impermissible, save and except in special circumstances."

Premature Invocation Of Constitutional Jurisdiction

The court found that the complainant company had not approached the Superintendent of Police or the Magistrate before filing the writ petition. Since there was no evidence that the statutory remedies were unavailable or inefficacious, the invocation of Article 226 was deemed premature. The bench observed that the High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction is made out against a statutory authority.

"There is, therefore, no foundation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the reason that efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists. Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to be premature."

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the interim order of the Bombay High Court. Consequently, the FIR registered pursuant to the High Court's directions was quashed. However, the court reserved liberty for the parties to pursue alternative statutory remedies under the BNSS. The bench clarified that its judgment should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or the commission of any criminal offence.

Date of Decision: 04 May 2026