Litigants Must Ordinarily Approach High Court First For Quashing FIRs, Article 32 Is For Exceptional Circumstances: Supreme Court

"At the same time, it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights." Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling dated July 24, 2026, held that while a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for quashing an FIR, litigants must ordinarily first approach the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226, unless there are exceptional circumstances involving a palpable violation of fundamental rights.

A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any exigent circumstances to justify bypassing the standard procedural remedies available under the law.

The petitioner, Rutvij Bhagat Singh Wakhare, approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of multiple FIRs registered against him across Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Odisha. The FIRs pertained to alleged cyber frauds where unknown persons posing as police officials induced victims to transfer large sums of money. The defrauded amounts were allegedly credited to a bank account maintained by the petitioner’s proprietary concern.

The primary question before the court was whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution should be entertained for seeking the quashing of criminal proceedings when alternative statutory remedies exist. The court was also called upon to determine whether the multiple FIRs registered in different states ought to be clubbed and consolidated into a single composite investigation.

Article 32 Is An Extraordinary Remedy

The court reiterated that Article 32 is the constitutional conduit for enforcing fundamental rights, famously described by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar as the 'heart and soul' of the Constitution. However, the bench emphasized that this broad jurisdiction remains an extraordinary remedy. The court cautioned that the power must be exercised with restraint and reserved strictly for exceptional situations where judicial intervention is indispensable to protect fundamental rights.

Requirement Of Orderly Judicial Procedure

Addressing the maintainability of the petition, the court noted that its power under Article 32 is sufficiently broad to quash criminal proceedings in appropriate cases to prevent the abuse of the process of law. The mere existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not inherently bar the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. Yet, as a matter of judicial discipline and orderly procedure, an aggrieved party is expected to first knock on the doors of the High Court.

"It is only where the facts disclose a violation of fundamental right(s) or other compelling circumstances that this Court would directly exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32."

Reliance On Precedents Governing Article 32

The bench extensively referenced past rulings to outline the scope of its writ jurisdiction. Citing Arnab Ranjan Goswami v. Union of India, the court noted that a petitioner should ordinarily be relegated to the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist. The court also drew upon Vinod Dua v. Union of India and Rajendra Bihari Lal v. State of U.P., clarifying that directing litigants to the High Court is a matter of self-imposed discipline, though the apex court will not hesitate to intervene in glaring cases of deprivation of liberty.

No Glaring Deprivation Of Rights Found

Turning to the facts of the present case, the court observed that the petitioner’s defense—that he was serving abroad on a merchant ship and had no knowledge that his bank account was being misused by his associates—did not automatically amount to an infringement of fundamental rights. The bench found no exigent or extraordinary circumstances in the pleadings that would justify bypassing the established procedural mechanisms available before the High Courts.

"In our considered opinion, the petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any fundamental right warranting the exercise of this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 32."

Clubbing Of Distinct FIRs Impermissible

On the alternative prayer for clubbing the FIRs, the court applied the 'test of sameness' to determine if the offenses formed part of the same transaction. The bench noted that each FIR was lodged by a different complainant based on separate transactions, involving distinct amounts and with no live link inter se. Refusing to consolidate the investigations, the court remarked that a composite probe into these complex, multi-jurisdictional cyber frauds might actually impede a fair and effective investigation.

The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the writ petition, declining both the primary prayer to quash the FIRs and the alternative request for clubbing them. The court expressly granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum to seek statutory remedies as available in law, leaving all contentions open to be considered by the competent court on their own merits.

Date of Decision: 24 July 2026