Back
Supreme Court Slaps Down 'Shortcut' to FIR: No Writ Bypassing Statutory Steps
In a ruling that reinforces the boundaries of extraordinary writ powers, the on , set aside a interim order directing police to register an FIR in a tangled property dispute. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih quashed FIR No. 0194/2025, holding that cannot be invoked as a first resort when clear statutory remedies exist under the . The decision, cited as , underscores that High Courts must not become the "" in such matters (as reported by LiveLaw).
From Resort Villas to Forgery Claims: The Backstory
The dispute centers on Gut No. 82 at Mouje Talwade, Trimbakeshwar, Nashik—a leisure resort called 'E&G Green Valley' developed by E & G Global Estates Ltd. (the complainant company). Purchased in 2010, it features 22 villas and a composite Unit No. 23. In 2012, the company leased it to M/s. E & G Resorts Pvt. Ltd. , allegedly leading to a fraudulent 2014 lease deed for Unit 23.
Corporate insolvency hit in 2020, triggering a moratorium under the . Amid this, E & G Resorts purportedly sub-leased to Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar (linked to appellants Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. ) in 2022. Appellants allegedly encroached, collected charges, and built unauthorized structures, sparking civil suits still pending.
Tensions peaked in 2024-2025: Complainant alleged appellants forged documents and impersonated Director Mrs. Asha Shivajirao Sanap to apply for property measurement on , misleading revenue officials on April 19. Complaints filed with land records office yielded no FIR; police bounced it back for inquiry. Bypassing Superintendent of Police or magistrate, complainant filed Bombay HC writ petition No. 5154/2025. HC's , order—sans notice—directed Sanap's statement, leading to the FIR under BNS , etc.
Appellants challenged this as a "counterblast" to civil rows.
Appellants Cry Foul: 'Writ Abuse Amid Civil Mess'
Led by senior counsel , appellants argued the HC overstepped by mandating FIR without exhausting BNSS remedies (). They portrayed allegations as civil disputes dressed as crime—forgery claims intertwined with pending suits on leases/sub-leases. No urgency for life/liberty violation; land office already inquired, police sought more probe. FIR was direct fallout of writ, illegal per precedents like Sakiri Vasu .
Complainant's Push: 'FIR Now, Probe Forgery'
Respondents, including Maharashtra and the company (via ), defended HC's discretion for cognizable offenses (forgery, impersonation). Land office flagged fakes to police, who dilly-dallied—writ was needed for justice. No admission of alt remedies pursued.
Court's Razor-Sharp Reminder: Follow the Statute Ladder
Drawing from Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021), the bench reiterated 's limits: discretionary, not for bypassing efficacious remedies. Exceptions (fundamental rights breach, natural justice violation) absent here. Echoing Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016), it stressed sequence: police station (BNSS 173(1)) → SP (173(4)) → magistrate (175(3)) → private complaint. Recent and reinforced: no writ if statute provides "equally efficacious" path.
"
is not a
,"
the court noted, slamming complainant's direct writ leap despite land-police exchanges. No evidence SP/magistrate approached; civil disputes don't justify criminal shortcuts absent urgency.
Precedents like and clarified: self-fault in skipping remedies bars writ relief.
Key Observations from the Bench
"The extraordinary jurisdiction under of the Constitution of India ought not to have been invoked when alternative were available."
"If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police... the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework."
"Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a thereby in its entirety. This is impermissible."
"Particularly in the absence of of an individual. is not a ."
Victory for Procedure: FIR Quashed, Doors Open Anew
Appeals allowed; HC order and FIR set aside. Parties free to pursue BNSS remedies afresh—no merit opinion expressed. This binds High Courts to statutory ladders in FIR delays, easing writ floodgates ( Sudhir Bhaskarrao ). For property feuds turning criminal, it signals: civil courts first, police protocol next—not straight to constitutional big guns.
