Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2325 of 2026 (@ of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1088 of 2026) With Criminal Appeal No. of 2026 (@ of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.1133 of 2026)
Decided On : 04-05-2026
(A) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154 [Section 173 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023] – Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Parameters – Writ jurisdiction is extraordinary, discretionary and subject to certain self-imposed restrictions – If a person has grievance that his FIR has not been registered by Police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking writ jurisdiction in first instance, but in seeking recourse to statutory framework, unless urgency of circumstances warrant otherwise – Extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available – It is not the case of complainant Company that it had approached concerned Superintendent of Police or Magistrate prior to filing writ petition, nor has any material been placed on record to show that such remedies were unavailable or inefficacious – Entertaining writ petition, in said circumstances, would in effect, result in High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing statutory scheme in its entirety – This is impermissible, save and except in special circumstances. (Paras 5, 7 and 10)
(B) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 173 [Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 154] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Writ Jurisdiction – Exercise of – Parameters – Direction given to State Authorities to register FIR – High Court is not bound to entertain a writ petition merely because a case of alleged inaction or negligence is made out against a statutory authority – Ordinarily, where statute provides complete and efficacious remedy, same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction – In present facts, complainant Company, has not exhausted sequential statutory remedies available under BNSS – There is no foundation to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction of High Court for the reason that efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists – Instant writ petition is premature and not fit to be entertained – Impugned interim order and FIR registered pursuant thereto quashed – Liberty reserved for parties to espouse alternative remedies. (Paras 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Appellant(s) have preferred present appeal(s) against impugned interim order dated 17.12.2025 passed by High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5154 of 2025, whereby High Court had directed police to record the statement of Director of Complainant Company and initiate necessary action as per provisions of law. Pursuant to said direction, FIRNo.0194/2025 came to be registered against present appellant(s).
Findings of Court:
Nothing contained in present judgment shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of case or as to whether or not facts disclose commission of any criminal offence.
Result : Appeal(s) allowed.
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 (!) (!) (!) .
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.
3.2 Upon its completion, the complainant Company executed an Agreement to Lease dated 31.03.2012 in favour M/s. E & G Resorts Pvt. Ltd., a Company in which respondent no.72[Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar – Appellant No.1 in Crl A@SLP (Crl) No.1133/2026.] is the Director. It is alleged that a registered Lease Deed dated 27.06.2014 was fraudulently executed between the complainant Company and M/s. E & G Resorts Pvt. Ltd., in respect of Unit No.23, pursuant to which possession of the said unit was taken over by the latter as a lessee.
3.3 Subsequently, since the complainant Company was classified as a Non-Performing Asset, a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process3[Hereinafter ‘CIRP’] was initiated and vide order dated 24.06.2020, a statutory moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 20164[Hereinafter ‘IBC’] came into force.
3.4 It is the case of the complainant Company that during the subsistence of the aforesaid moratorium, M/s. E&G Resorts Pvt. Ltd., executed a sub-lease deed dated 14.10.2022 in favour of respondent no.7 – Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar. Under the guise of said sub-lease deed, respondent no.7 along with the present appellants(s) is alleged to have asserted rights over the entire project including Unit No.23 and began collecting maintenance charge, creating third-party interests and carrying out unauthorized constructions causing inconvenience to other lessees.
3.5 Consequently, multiple civil suits were instituted inter se the parties, including suits challenging the validity of the sub-lease deed dated 14.10.2022 and seeking an injunction from creating encumbrances or third-party rights. It is not in dispute that such civil proceedings are presently pending adjudication before competent Courts.
3.6 The genesis of the criminal allegations, however, arise from certain events stated to have occurred between December 2024 and April 2025. It is alleged that the accused persons, including the present appellant(s), submitted an application for measurement of the property on 02.04.2025 in the name of the complainant Company using forged documents and fabricated details and signatures. It is further alleged that during the survey on 19.04.2025, a woman impersonated herself as the Director of the complainant Company, namely Mrs. Asha Shivajirao Sanap, and misled the Revenue officials into completing the measurement process. According to the complainant Company, the aforesaid acts were undertaken with an inten
Writ Jurisdiction cannot be invoked to register FIR where alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies are available.
The High Court should not exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR when an efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available, unless there are exceptional....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the High Court cannot issue a direction for registration of an FIR under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the aggrieved person sh....
Writ jurisdiction should only be exercised when no alternative remedies exist; parties must seek resolution through appropriate legal channels before court intervention.
Point of law: although Sec. 156(3) is very briefly worded, there is an implied power in the Magistrate under Sec. 156(3) Cr.P.C. to order registration of a criminal offence and / or to direct the off....
The main legal point established is the mandatory registration of FIR if the information discloses a cognizable offence and the need for a preliminary inquiry in certain cases. The court emphasized t....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
