The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that constitutional writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used as a first resort to compel police to register an FIR when statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are available and unexhausted. This judgment clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in criminal procedure and reinforces the statutory hierarchy for initiating prosecution.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arises from a complex commercial property conflict involving E&G Global Estates Ltd. (the Complainant Company) and its lessees, including the appellants. The property, Gut No. 82 at Talwade, Trimbakeshwar, Nashik, was purchased in 2010 and developed into a resort with 23 units. A lease agreement dated 31.03.2012 was executed in favor of M/s. E&G Resorts Pvt. Ltd., and a subsequent lease deed dated 27.06.2014 was alleged to be fraudulent. After the Complainant Company was classified as a Non-Performing Asset, a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated on 24.06.2020, triggering a statutory moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.
Key Facts
- The Complainant Company’s Director, Mrs. Asha Shivajirao Sanap, alleged that between December 2024 and April 2025, the appellants submitted a forged measurement application for Gut No. 82 using fabricated documents and signatures.
- On 19.04.2025, a woman impersonated Mrs. Sanap before Revenue officials to complete the property measurement process.
- The Complainant Company had, in September 2024, directed lessees including the appellants to remove unauthorized constructions.
- The appellants, including Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar, allegedly used the fraudulent measurement to assert control over Unit No. 23, collect maintenance charges, and create third-party interests.
- Multiple civil suits challenging the sub-lease deed dated 14.10.2022 are pending before civil courts.
Procedural History
- 13.06.2025: Complainant Company filed first complaint with Deputy Superintendent of Land Records, Trimbakeshwar.
- 09.07.2025: Second complaint filed with same authority.
- 29.07.2025: Land Records Authority declined coercive action and advised complainant to seek redressal from competent authority.
- 29.07.2025: Land Records Authority wrote to Trimbakeshwar Police Inspector, requesting legal action.
- 01.09.2025: Police returned complaint to Land Records Department, stating the matter fell within their jurisdiction.
- 17.12.2025: High Court of Bombay, in Writ Petition No. 5154 of 2025, issued interim order directing Director of Complainant Company to record statement and directing police to take action as per law.
- 23.12.2025: FIR No. 0194/2025 registered against appellants under Sections 318(2), 318(4), 319, 335, 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 340(2), and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The Parties' Positions
The appellants contend that the FIR was registered solely due to the High Court’s interim order, which bypassed statutory remedies under BNSS. They argue the FIR is retaliatory, given the pending civil disputes. The State, while not defending the High Court’s order, maintains that the allegations of forgery and impersonation are serious and warrant investigation.
Relief Sought
The appellants seek quashing of the FIR No. 0194/2025 and setting aside of the High Court’s interim order dated 17.12.2025, arguing that the writ petition was prematurely filed without exhausting statutory remedies.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court could, under Article 226 of the Constitution, direct the police to register an FIR without the complainant first exhausting the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The appellants relied on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage to argue that the statutory mechanism under BNSS - specifically Sections 173(4) and 175(3) - provides a complete and efficacious remedy for non-registration of FIRs. They contended that the complainant’s failure to approach the Superintendent of Police or a Magistrate rendered the writ petition premature. They further argued that the High Court’s intervention effectively converted it into a court of first instance, bypassing the legislative scheme.
For the Respondent/State
The State did not defend the High Court’s order but acknowledged that the allegations of forgery and impersonation were serious. However, it conceded that the complainant had not exhausted remedies under BNSS and that the writ petition was not maintainable in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a comprehensive review of its jurisprudence on the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226. It reaffirmed that while the jurisdiction is wide, it is discretionary and subject to self-imposed limitations, particularly where an efficacious alternative remedy exists.
"The jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the article. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so."
The Court emphasized that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, provides a clear, sequential remedy: (1) lodging information at the police station; (2) approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS if the FIR is refused; and (3) moving the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS if the Superintendent fails to act. These remedies are not merely procedural but are designed to ensure that criminal investigations are initiated only after due scrutiny.
The Court noted that the complainant had approached the Land Records Authority, which in turn communicated with the police, but no step was taken under BNSS. The High Court’s direction to record the Director’s statement and initiate action was not based on any finding of police inaction or malafide, but on the complainant’s petition alone.
The Court held that the High Court’s intervention was impermissible because:
- There was no allegation of police mala fide or deliberate refusal to act;
- No attempt was made to invoke Section 175(3) BNSS;
- The matter involved disputed questions of fact (forgery, impersonation) requiring evidentiary inquiry, which is not the domain of writ jurisdiction;
- The existence of pending civil suits further indicated that the dispute was commercial and not urgent enough to warrant constitutional intervention.
The Court reiterated that Article 226 is not a substitute for statutory remedies and cannot be used to circumvent the legislative framework. The High Court’s order, therefore, was an overreach.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s interim order dated 17.12.2025 and quashed FIR No. 0194/2025 registered on 23.12.2025. The Court reserved liberty for the parties to pursue remedies under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, if advised. No opinion was expressed on the merits of the allegations of forgery or impersonation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Statutory Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Writ Petitions
- Practitioners must advise clients to first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS before filing a writ petition seeking FIR registration.
- Writ petitions under Article 226 will be dismissed at the threshold if statutory remedies under BNSS are available and unexhausted, even if the allegations are serious.
Writ Courts Will Not Act as First-Instance Fact-Finders
- Courts will not entertain writ petitions where the issue involves disputed facts such as forgery, impersonation, or document authenticity.
- Such disputes must be resolved through criminal complaint under Section 175(3) BNSS or civil proceedings, not constitutional jurisdiction.
FIR Registration Cannot Be Compelled by Judicial Order Without Statutory Trigger
- A writ petition cannot be used to compel registration of an FIR merely because a complainant alleges a cognizable offence.
- The police retain discretion under BNSS to assess the prima facie credibility of information before registration.
Civil Disputes Do Not Justify Criminal Intervention
- Where civil suits are pending over property rights, commercial disputes, or contractual breaches, criminal proceedings initiated via writ jurisdiction will be viewed with suspicion as retaliatory.
- Courts will require clear evidence of malafide or imminent threat to life/liberty before allowing criminal proceedings to be initiated through constitutional remedies.
