Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to bypass statutory remedies for registering an FIR, such as approaching a Magistrate under the BNSS : Analysis of Judgment: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026)

-

  • Summary

The Supreme Court set aside a Bombay High Court order that directed the police to record a statement and initiate "necessary action" (leading to an FIR). The Court emphasized that Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used to bypass statutory remedies for registering an FIR, such as approaching a Magistrate under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

1. Case Background and Convoluted Facts

The dispute originated from a property in Trimbakeshwar, Nashik, developed by E&G Global Estates Ltd. (the Complainant Company).

  • Commercial Disputes: The parties were embroiled in complex litigation involving lease deeds, sub-leases, and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Processes (CIRP).

  • The Criminal Allegation: The Complainant Company alleged that the appellants used forged documents and impersonation to apply for property measurements in April 2025 to regularize unauthorized constructions.

  • Procedural History: The Land Records Authority declined to take coercive action, advising the parties to seek redress from a "competent authority". Instead of following the statutory criminal procedure, the Complainant Company filed a writ petition in the High Court.

2. The High Court's Intervention

On December 17, 2025, the Bombay High Court issued an interim order directing the police to record the Director's statement and initiate necessary action. This resulted in the registration of FIR No. 0194/2025 under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), including forgery and cheating.

3. Key Legal Question

Can a High Court, under Article 226, direct the registration of an FIR if the applicant has not first exhausted alternative statutory remedies?

4. Supreme Court’s Findings and Reasoning

A. The Doctrine of Alternative Remedy

The Court reiterated that while Article 226 is broad, it is extraordinary and discretionary. Referencing Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P., the Court noted that when a statute (like the BNSS) provides a specific procedure for enforcing a right, that path must be followed first.

B. The "Structured Sequential Mechanism" of BNSS

The Court highlighted the specific path a complainant must take if the police refuse to register an FIR:

  1. Section 173(1) BNSS: Information to the officer-in-charge.

  2. Section 173(4) BNSS: Application to the Superintendent of Police (SP).

  3. Section 175(3) BNSS: Application before the jurisdictional Magistrate.

C. Misuse of Writ Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court observed that the Complainant Company bypassed the SP and the Magistrate. Entertaining such writ petitions "floods" the High Courts and allows the statutory machinery to be bypassed. Unless there is an imminent danger to life or liberty, Article 226 is not a "panacea for all grievances".

5. Final Decision

  • Order: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s interim order.

  • Consequence: FIR No. 0194/2025 was quashed as it was a direct consequence of an improper High Court direction.

  • Liberty Granted: The Complainant Company was given the liberty to pursue alternative remedies (approaching a Magistrate) in accordance with the law.

  • Neutrality: The Court clarified it was not expressing any opinion on the actual merits or the truth of the criminal allegations.

Conclusion for Practitioners

This judgment serves as a stern reminder that the Supreme Court will not tolerate "shortcut" litigation. Litigants must follow the hierarchical procedure laid down in the BNSS 2023 before seeking the intervention of the High Court.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points:

-
Important sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) along with key points: Chapter-wise Important Sections of BNS, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Section 1 – Short title, extent, and commencement Section 2 – Definitions (similar to IPC, but some terms updated) Section 3 – Punishment of offenses committed beyond India but by Indian citizens General Exceptions (Defense to Criminal Liability) Section 20 – Act done by a child below 7 years is not an offense Section 21 – Act done by a child above 7 but below 12, considering maturity Section 24 – Right of private defense (self-defense provisions) Section 25 – Right of private defense extending to causing death in certain cases Offenses Against the State Section 111 – Waging war against the Government of India Section 113 – Sedition (modified from IPC; now called "acts endangering sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India") Offenses Affecting Public Tranquility ...
Read more

MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

-
Here is a set of 20 multiple-choice questions (MCQs) based on the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, focusing on both conceptual understanding and practical application. Each question is followed by an explanation. MCQs on Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 General Principles & Definitions Which of the following is a fundamental principle introduced in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? a) Rehabilitation-focused punishment b) Community service as an alternative to imprisonment c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism d) Legalization of certain offenses under previous laws Answer: c) Stringent punishment for organized crime and terrorism Explanation: The BNS 2023 enhances penalties for offenses like terrorism, mob lynching, and organized crime to strengthen national security. Under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which term replaces the word ‘offense’ used in IPC, 1860? a) Crime b) Illegality c) Apradh d) Wrongdoing Answer: c) Apradh Explanation: The term...
Read more

The Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (Striking out or adding parties at any stage of a proceeding) necessary and Proper Party Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC, 1908

-
Image
Hon'ble Supreme Court Landmark rulings on Impleadment of Parties (necessary and Proper Party ) order 1 rule 10 of the CPC, 1908  Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre , Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal , and Sumtibai v. Paras Finance Co. , focusing on impleadment of parties under Order I Rule 10(2), CPC in specific performance suits . Comparative Case Analysis: Impleadment of Parties in Specific Performance Suits Case Name Key Issue Held Position on Impleadment Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. v. Regency Convention Centre (2010) 7 SCC 417 Can a third party with prospective interest in the suit property be impleaded? ❌ No impleadment A party with only expectation of acquiring interest (not an existing right) is not a proper or necessary party . The plaintiff's choice of whom to sue is respected unless the twin test is met. Kasturi v. Iyyamperumal (2005) 6 SCC 733 Can a person claiming adverse title to both plaintiff and defendant be impleaded? ...
Read more