The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court interim order that led to the registration of an FIR, holding that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot ordinarily be invoked for directing FIR registration without first exhausting statutory remedies.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol, emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction of High Courts must not be used to bypass the procedural framework laid down under criminal law, particularly where effective alternate remedies exist. 

The case arose out of a complex commercial and property dispute concerning a resort project in Nashik. The complainant company alleged that certain individuals had forged documents, impersonated company officials, and carried out fraudulent acts to assert control over the property and regularize unauthorized constructions.

Complaints were initially filed before the Land Records Authority and subsequently referred to the police. However, instead of pursuing remedies under criminal procedure law, the complainant approached the Bombay High Court under Article 226 seeking a direction for FIR registration.

Acting on the writ petition, the High Court directed the police to record statements and take action, which resulted in the registration of an FIR against the appellants under multiple provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition at the threshold stage without ensuring that statutory remedies had been exhausted.

The Court reiterated that although Article 226 confers wide powers, it is discretionary and subject to self-imposed limitations. It stressed that when a statute provides a complete mechanism for grievance redressal, such as the procedure for FIR registration, that mechanism must be followed.

Referring to established precedents including Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court underscored that a complainant must first approach the police under statutory provisions; in case of refusal, remedies lie before the Superintendent of Police; thereafter, recourse can be taken before the Magistrate; and direct invocation of writ jurisdiction is not appropriate except in exceptional circumstances.

The Court noted that the complainant failed to approach the competent authorities under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and instead directly invoked writ jurisdiction, which amounted to bypassing the statutory scheme. 

Holding that the FIR was a direct consequence of the High Court’s interim order, the Supreme Court quashed FIR No. 0194/2025. It ruled that the writ petition itself was premature and not maintainable in the absence of exhaustion of alternate remedies.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the allegations or the existence of a criminal offence, leaving it open for parties to pursue remedies in accordance with law.

Case Details

Case Title: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra

Citation: JURISHOUR-1092-SC-2026

Case No.:  Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1088 of 2026

Date: 04/05/2026

Read More: Direct Tax Collections Rise 5.12% to Rs. 23.40 Lakh Crore in FY 2025–26