Back
: Satyabrata Dey Must Exhaust BNSS Remedies Before Writ for Registration
Dismisses Premature Registration Plea, Reinforces Statutory Hierarchy Under BNSS
The has declined to entertain a seeking the registration and investigation of a First Information Report (), holding that the petitioner must first exhaust the statutory remedies provided under the , before invoking the of the High Court under .
Justice Manish Choudhury, presiding over a single-judge bench, delivered the judgment on , in the matter of Satyabrata Dey vs. The & Others (WP(C)/4405/2026). The Court found that the petitioner had directly approached the High Court without seeking redress before the jurisdictional , thereby rendering the petition premature.
The Controversy: A Tender Award Dispute
The case arose from a tender process conducted by the in Hojai, Assam, for the supply of sand gravel. Satyabrata Dey quoted a rate of Rs. 925 per cubic metre, which he claimed was the lowest. However, the Municipal Board accepted the tender of another supplier, Chabi Tapadar, at a higher rate of Rs. 1,250 per cubic metre. Dey also alleged that the beneficiary submitted the Tax Clearance Certificate after the last date of submission.
Dey had previously filed a (WP(C)/1332/2025) seeking a criminal investigation into the alleged irregularities. That petition was dismissed on , on the ground that no had been filed prior to approaching the Court, though was granted to take recourse to appropriate legal provisions.
Thereafter, on , Dey sent an by registered post to the Officer-in-Charge of , but the was not registered. A subsequent RTI application to the , on , yielded no response. Dey then filed the present , seeking a direction to the authorities to register and investigate the case based on his unregistered .
Arguments Before the Court
Petitioner’s Submissions
, counsel for Satyabrata Dey, contended that despite sending the and following up with an RTI application, the police had failed to take any action. The petitioner argued that the inaction by the respondent authorities justified the High Court’s intervention to compel registration of the .
Respondent’s Submissions
, learned Junior Government Advocate representing the State, submitted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under the BNSS. He argued that instead of filing a , Dey should have approached the Superintendent of Police under and, if that failed, the jurisdictional under .
Court’s Legal Analysis: The Primacy of Statutory Remedies
Justice Choudhury delved into the settled legal position, drawing extensively from precedents. The Court noted that the BNSS, which replaced the , provides a clear sequential mechanism for a person aggrieved by non-registration of an .
Section 173(4) of the BNSS allows an aggrieved person to approach the Superintendent of Police if the officer-in-charge refuses to record information disclosing a . If that remedy fails, Section 175(3) empowers the to order an investigation upon an application supported by an .
The Court relied on the landmark judgment in Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008), where the held that the has wide powers under (now Section 175(3) BNSS) to direct registration of an and ensure a proper investigation. The had cautioned that the High Court should discourage the practice of entertaining writ petitions directly for such grievances.
In Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016), the reiterated that the remedy for non-registration of an lies before the , not by rushing to the High Court, to avoid being flooded with such petitions.
More recently, in Sujal Viswas Attavar vs. State of Maharashtra (2026), the specifically held that under Article 226 ought not to be invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies are available. The Court observed that “Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances.”
Applying these principles, Justice Choudhury found that the petitioner had not approached the jurisdictional Judicial at any point before filing the . The Court stated:
“From the pleaded case of the petitioner, it has not emerged that the petitioner had, at any point of time, approached the jurisdictional Judicial seeking registration of the .”
The Court further observed that the prayer in the was for a direction to initiate investigation with registration of the “without any previous approach to the jurisdictional ” to avail the statutory remedy provided under Section 173(4) read with .
Key Observations from the Judgment
Justice Choudhury emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory framework:
“Without availing such statutory remedy provided under the BNSS, the petitioner has directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking for initiation of criminal proceedings with registration of the . Thus, in the considered view of this Court, such a recourse to writ proceeding in the first instance is contrary to the settled principles of law.”
The Court also noted that the BNSS provides a structured sequential mechanism and that the High Court should ordinarily refuse to interfere and relegate the petitioner to alternative remedies.
The Final Decision: Dismissed with
The concluded that the was premature and declined to entertain it. The operative part of the judgment reads:
“In view of the settled position of law, as outlined above, and the fact situation obtaining in the case, this Court finds the present as a premature one and therefore, it is not a one to be entertained.”
However, the Court granted to the petitioner to avail the remedy under the BNSS by first approaching the Superintendent of Police and, if necessary, thereafter the jurisdictional under Section 173(4) read with Section 175(3), following the due procedure and formalities laid down in those provisions.
The Court also clarified that its observations were not an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or whether the facts disclosed the commission of any criminal offence.
Implications and Significance
This judgment serves as a clear reminder that the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not a substitute for the statutory remedies provided under the criminal procedure code. By reiterating the principle that alternative remedies must be exhausted before seeking extraordinary constitutional relief, the aligns itself with the consistent view of the . The decision reinforces the importance of following the hierarchical mechanism under the BNSS, ensuring that complaints are addressed at the appropriate level and that the High Court’s time is reserved for cases of genuine urgency where statutory remedies are unavailable or inefficacious.
For litigants and legal practitioners, the message is unequivocal: before knocking on the doors of the High Court for direction to register an , the aggrieved person must first climb the steps provided by the BNSS — from the police station to the Superintendent of Police, and then to the .
