The Supreme Court of India has set aside an interim order of the Bombay High Court that directed the registration of a First Information Report (FIR), ruling that extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should not be invoked when equally efficacious statutory remedies remain unexhausted.
The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih, emphasized that the statutory framework under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) provides a sequential mechanism for criminal prosecution that must be followed.
Background of the Case
The case involves a convoluted commercial dispute centered on a property known as ‘E&G Green Valley’ in Nashik. The complainant, E & G Global Estates Ltd., alleged that while the company was under a statutory moratorium following the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), a fraudulent sub-lease deed was executed in favour of Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar (Appellant No.1).
The criminal allegations arose from events between December 2024 and April 2025. The complainant alleged that the accused submitted a measurement application for the property using forged documents and that a woman impersonated the company’s Director, Mrs. Asha Shivajirao Sanap, to mislead Revenue officials.
Upon discovery, the company filed complaints with the Land Records Office. The Authority declined coercive action, advising the complainant to seek redressal from a competent authority. While the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records requested police investigation, the Police returned the matter, stating it was departmental in nature. Aggrieved, the complainant approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226.
The High Court Order and Appeal
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. Consequently, FIR No. 0194/2025 was registered under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS). The appellants challenged this, contending that the registration of the FIR was a direct result of the High Court’s directions, bypassing the statutory framework.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Principles
The Supreme Court observed that the primary issue was whether a High Court could direct the registration of an FIR under Article 226 without the applicant first taking recourse to alternative remedies.
Referring to the principle of “self-imposed restrictions” on writ jurisdiction, the Court cited Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021), noting that while Article 226 powers are wide, they are discretionary. The Bench stated:
“When a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution.”
The Court further relied on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016), which established that if an FIR is not registered, the aggrieved person must approach the Superintendent of Police under the relevant section (now Section 173(4) BNSS) and then the Magistrate (now Section 175(3) BNSS), rather than rushing to the High Court.
The Bench remarked:
“Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances… 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.”
The Decision
The Court found that the complainant company had not approached the concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate before filing the writ petition. There were no “special circumstances” or “imminent danger of violation of life or liberty” to justify bypassing the sequential statutory remedies provided under the BNSS.
Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the Bombay High Court’s interim order, and quashed FIR No. 0194/2025. However, the Court granted liberty to the parties to pursue alternative remedies in accordance with the law, clarifying that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the criminal allegations.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. ___ of 2026 (@SLP(Crl.) No.1088 of 2026)
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih
- Date: May 4, 2026
