SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 479

SANJAY KAROL, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Sujal Vishwas Attavar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appreed:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Geeta Luthra, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nilesh Tribhuvan, Adv. Mr. Burzin Bharucha, Adv. Mr. Rohit Saraswat, Adv. Mr. Shahrukh Ahmad, AOR Mr. Pururaj Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. P.D. Naik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Ms. Manjeet Kirpal, AOR

Judgement Key Points

What is the scope and limitations of Article 226 writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory remedy exists under BNSS for registering an FIR? What is the proper sequence of statutory remedies before approaching the High Court for non-registration or inaction in FIR registration under BNSS S.173? What are the exceptions or circumstances under which the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction notwithstanding available statutory remedies?

Key Points: - The High Court cannot ordinarily entertain a writ petition when an efficacious statutory remedy is available under BNSS S.173 and related provisions (!) (!) (!) . - BNSS provides a sequential mechanism: FIR to police under S.173, then remedies with the Superintendent of Police under S.173(4), then Magistrate under S.175(3) (!) . - Writ jurisdiction may be invoked in exceptional circumstances (e.g., violation of fundamental rights, natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or vires challenge) but not as a general substitute for statutory remedies (!) (!) . - Sakiri Vasu and subsequent cases emphasize approaching police or Magistrate under CrPC before resorting to Article 226 (!) (!) (!) . - The Court set aside an interim order directing FIR registration where BNSS remedies were not exhausted, quashing FIR Nos. 0194/2025 (!) . - The decision reiterates that Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances about FIRs or investigations, and High Courts should discourage such interference in routine inaction cases (!) (!) . - The judgment references and aligns with Radha Krishan Industries and Rikhab Chand Jain on limits of writs when statutory remedies exist (!) (!) (!) . - The matter involved directing police to record statements and resulted in FIR registration as a consequence of writ directions, which was set aside (!) (!) (!) .

What is the scope and limitations of Article 226 writ jurisdiction when an efficacious statutory remedy exists under BNSS for registering an FIR?

What is the proper sequence of statutory remedies before approaching the High Court for non-registration or inaction in FIR registration under BNSS S.173?

What are the exceptions or circumstances under which the High Court may exercise writ jurisdiction notwithstanding available statutory remedies?


JUDGMENT :

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

2. The appellant(s) have preferred the present appeal(s) against the impugned interim order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5154 of 2025, whereby the High Court had directed the police to record the statement of Director, Mrs. Asha Shivajirao Sanap, of E & G Global Estates Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Complainant Company’) and initiate necessary action as per provisions of law. Pursuant to the said direction, FIR1[Short for ‘First Information Report’.] No.0194/2025 came to be registered against the present appellant(s).

3. Although the question raised in this appeal is one of relative simplicity i.e., whether under Article 226 of the Constitution of India a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law. This question however arises from a convoluted set of facts involving various commercial transactions and as such it would be important for the purposes of clarity to appreciate the same.

    3.1 The property in question, bearing Gut No.82 situated at Mouje Talwade, Trimbakesh

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top