Latest JudgementConstitution of India

Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026

The Supreme Court held that Article 226 writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a first remedy for FIR registration.

Supreme Court of India·4 May 2026

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

4 May 2026

Judges

Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Article 226, Constitution of India

Facts of the Case

The complainant alleged that forged documents were used to seek measurement of property.
It was further alleged that certain individuals impersonated the company’s director before revenue authorities to facilitate such measurement.
The complainant initially approached the Land Records Authority, which declined to take coercive action and advised seeking remedy before appropriate forum.
The complainant also made representations to the police, but no FIR was registered.
Instead of pursuing statutory remedies under criminal procedure law, the complainant directly filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 seeking FIR registration.
The High Court directed the police to record statements and proceed with FIR registration.
The accused challenged this order before the Supreme Court.

Whether High Courts can invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct registration of FIR at the first instance without exhausting statutory remedies?
Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when alternative remedies under criminal law are available and not exhausted?

The Supreme Court held that Article 226 writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a first remedy for FIR registration.
It observed that where statutory remedies exist under criminal procedure law, they must ordinarily be exhausted first.
The Court held that the High Court erred in directly entertaining the writ petition without examining availability of alternative remedies.
The complainant had not approached:
- Superintendent of Police
- Magistrate under statutory provisions
No material was shown that such remedies were unavailable or ineffective.
The Supreme Court held that entertaining such writ petitions would convert High Courts into courts of first instance, bypassing statutory safeguards.
The Court clarified that Article 226 is not a universal remedy for all grievances and is to be used sparingly in exceptional circumstances.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be used as the first remedy for FIR registration.
Statutory remedies under criminal law must be exhausted before approaching High Court.
High Courts should not bypass the criminal procedural framework.
Exception is only where urgency or violation of life/liberty is shown.
The High Court’s order was set aside.
Liberty was granted to the complainant to pursue statutory remedies.

The ruling reinforces the principle of judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction.
It strengthens the criminal procedure framework by ensuring structured escalation before invoking constitutional remedies.
The Court prevents misuse of Article 226 as a substitute for statutory remedies under BNSS/CrPC framework.
It clarifies that FIR-related disputes must primarily follow the statutory complaint mechanism (SP, Magistrate route).
The decision promotes institutional discipline and prevents High Courts from becoming courts of first instance in criminal matters.
At the same time, it preserves an exception for urgent cases involving life, liberty, or extraordinary circumstances.