Cause Title: SUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
In the present case, it is evident from the record that the complainant Company initially approached the Land Record Authority, by way of complaints dated 13.06.2025 and 09.07.2025, with copies thereof being sent to the police authority. However, it did not avail any of the statutory legal 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 court observed.
“It is not the case of the complainant Company that it had approached the concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate prior to filing the writ petition, nor has any material been placed on record to show that such remedies were unavailable or inefficacious. 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.”,
Before the Supreme Court, the issue was whether, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law.
Setting aside the impugned order, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that the High Court erred in exercising its discretionary writ jurisdiction to direct FIR registration, despite the availability of statutory remedies, not availed by the complainants under the criminal law framework
the court added.
In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned decision was set aside, with liberty to the complainants to explore alternative legal remedies in accordance with law.
