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 circumstances or an imminent threat to life or liberty, as this would bypass the established sequential criminal procedure.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ jurisdiction - Exercise of - Availability of alternative remedy - High Court should not ordinarily entertain a writ petition for registration of an FIR when statutory remedies under the criminal procedure code are available - Such jurisdiction is discretionary and subject to self-imposed restrictions - Bypassing the statutory mechanism is impermissible unless there are special circumstances or imminent danger to life or liberty. (Paras 5, 7, 9, 10)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Registration of FIR - Sequential mechanism - Complainant must first approach the officer-in-charge of the police station, then the Superintendent of Police, and thereafter the Magistrate under the relevant statutory provisions - High Court should not act as a court of first instance for such grievances. (Paras 6, 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The complainant sought a direction from the High Court under its writ jurisdiction to register an FIR regarding allegations of forgery and fraud in property measurement. The High Court, without notice to the accused, directed the police to record a statement and initiate action, leading to the registration of an FIR. The accused challenged this order, contending that the complainant had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under the criminal procedure code.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the High Court erred in entertaining the writ petition as the complainant had not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies. The court emphasized that the writ jurisdiction is not a panacea for all grievances and should not be used to bypass the established statutory framework for criminal investigations.

Issues: Whether the High Court can exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR when the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative statutory remedies provided by law.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the High Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statutory framework, unless there are exceptional circumstances. The sequential mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution must be followed.

Result: Appeals allowed; impugned order set aside; FIR quashed.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - Point 1 (!) - Point 2 (!) - Point 3 (!) - Point 4 (!) - Point 5 (!)

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Table of Content
1. case history involving property disputes and high court's initial direction for fir registration. (Para 2)
2. exhaustion of statutory remedies is a prerequisite for writ jurisdiction. (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
3. writ jurisdiction cannot bypass mandated statutory criminal investigative procedures. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. order setting aside high court directions and quashing the resultant fir. (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

SANJAY KAROL, J.

Leave Granted.

The appellant(s) have preferred the present appeal(s)

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2026.05.04 against the impugned interim order dated 17.12.2025 passed by Reason:

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, FIR, 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, Trimbakeshwar, District Nashik, was purchased by the complainant Company (Respondent No.2 herein) vide a Sale Deed dated 11.10.2010 and was thereafter developed into a leisure resort named as ‘E&G Green Valley’ comprising of 22

villas (Unit No.1 to 22) and a composite Unit No.23 consisting of studio apartments and allied structures.

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 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 Process, Hereinafter ‘CIRP’. was initiated and vide order dated 24.06.2020, a statutory moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 20164 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

2 Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar – Appellant No.1 in Crl A@SLP (Crl) No.1133/2026.

4 Hereinafter ‘IBC’.

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), submit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1694

Question 1?

Question 2?

Question 3?

Cases Referred (5)