High Court Reinforces Limitations on Writ Mandamus for FIR Registration: Calcutta High Court - 2025-12-17

Writ Jurisdiction Not a Shortcut: High Court Declines Mandamus for FIR Registration in Civil Disputes

In a significant reiteration of established legal principles, the Calcutta High Court has clarified that constitutional courts cannot be utilized as a substitute for statutory criminal procedure or civil litigation. Ruling on an intra-court appeal ( Abdul Rashid Khan vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. ), the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen underscored that individuals aggrieved by police inaction must exhaust codified statutory remedies before seeking intervention from the High Court.

The Backdrop: A Land Dispute at the Core

The matter originated from a property dispute where the appellant sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel police to register an FIR against several private parties. Effectively, the appellant attempted to use the High Court’s writ jurisdiction to resolve a long-standing land disagreement and bypass standard police reporting procedures. The learned Single Judge had previously held that such disputes fall squarely within the domain of civil law and directed the police merely to maintain law and order, prompting the present appeal.

The Legal Tug-of-War: Mandamus vs. Statutory Remedy

The core legal question before the Bench was whether a Writ of Mandamus could be issued to force the police to register an FIR and initiate criminal proceedings.

The appellant argued for immediate judicial intervention to address the alleged inaction of the police. However, the State maintained that the dispute was primarily civil in nature and that the petitioner had failed to follow the procedural hierarchy mandated by law.

The Court’s analysis centered on the Bhartya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Specific Relief Act, 1963 . The Bench observed that Sections 173 and 175 of the BNSS provide a clear, step-by-step mechanism for aggrieved persons—beginning with the local police, moving to the Superintendent of Police, and ultimately to the jurisdictional Magistrate—to address failures in registering FIRs.

Reasoning: Why Alternate Remedies Matter

Drawing from the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh , the Court highlighted that the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary. A court should decline such petitions when an "efficacious alternative remedy" exists, especially when the case involves disputed questions of fact that are better suited for trial courts.

"The principle of exhaustion of statutory remedies is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion," the Bench noted, reinforcing that the judiciary is not the primary forum for policing the performance of day-to-day investigative duties when the legislature has already provided robust alternatives.

Key Observations

The judgment features several pointed reminders regarding the boundaries of judicial interference:

• On the nature of Writ of Mandamus: "This is trite that no Writ of Mandamus can be issued to reduce a complaint into F.I.R. and take consequential action."
• On the role of the Magistrate: "If the jurisdictional Officer-in-charge of the Police Station or the Jurisdictional SP refuse to register FIR, the aggrieved person still has his remedy to approach before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate."
• On Civil Disputes: "The legislatures in their own wisdom have enacted the provisions of Section 6 of this Specific Relief Act thereby granting a dispossessed person an efficacious and speedy remedy."
• On Judicial Restraint: "The High Court has the discretion not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an effective alternate remedy is available."

The Verdict and Its Implication

The High Court eventually dismissed the appeal, holding that the petitioner had sufficient alternative avenues to resolve the dispute, both in terms of the alleged criminal conduct and the underlying property grievance.

This decision serves as a stern warning against the current trend of "flooding" the High Court with writ petitions that seek to bypass the established criminal code. For legal professionals and litigants alike, the ruling confirms that the High Court remains a forum of last resort for police inaction, strictly reserved for cases where statutory mechanisms have failed or constitutional rights are palpably violated. Practitioners must now pivot away from broad mandamus prayers and lean more heavily into the specific, stage-appropriate remedies laid out in the BNSS.