LexSUJAL VISHWAS ATTAVAR & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 5 S.C.R. 273 : 2026 INSC 442 Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 2325 of 2026) 04 May 2026 [Sanjay Karol* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether u/Art.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. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Extraordinary jurisdiction under, cannot be invoked seeking directions for registration of FIR when alternative statutory remedies are available – Complainant Company filed complaints before the Deputy Superintendent of Land Records Office alleging forgery, impersonation and fraud by accused persons including the appellant(s) in the measurement application for measurement of the property and sought registration of FIR – Land Records Authority declined to take any coercive action – Allegations of fake measurement were also brought to the notice of the Police however, the matter was returned to the Land Records Department for further inquiry – Writ petition filed by complainant Company – High Court directed the police to record the statement of Director of the Complainant Company and initiate necessary action as per provisions of law – FIR registered against the appellant(s) pursuant thereto – Interference with: Held: The extraordinary jurisdiction u/Art.226 ought not to have been invoked when alternative equally efficacious statutory remedies were available – If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being conducted, then the remedy does not ordinarily lie in invoking the writ jurisdiction in the first instance, but in seeking recourse to the statutory framework, unless of course the urgency of the circumstances warrant otherwise – Complainant Company did not exhaust the sequential statutory remedies * Author 274 [2026] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports available under BNSS – Therefore, there is no foundation to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court as efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exist – Writ petition premature – Impugned interim order set aside – FIR registered pursuant thereto quashed – Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 – Alternative remedy. [Paras 7, 11, 12] Constitution of India – Art.226 – Exercise of writ jurisdiction by High Court in the presence of an alternative remedy – Impermissibility: Held: 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 a statute provides a complete and efficacious remedy, the same must be exhausted before invoking constitutional jurisdiction – Complainant Company initially approached the Land Record Authority, by way of complaints with copies thereof being sent to the police authority – However, it did not avail any of the statutory remedies provided under BNSS and instead directly invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court, inter alia, seeking directions for registration of FIR – Such a recourse, in the first instance, is contrary to the settled principles of law – Particularly in the absence of imminent danger of violation of life or liberty of an individual – Art.226 is not a panacea for all grievances – Entertaining a writ petition, in the said circumstances, would in effect, result in the High Court, acting as a forum of first instance thereby bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety – This is impermissible, save and except in special circumstances which are conspicuously absent in the present case. [Paras 9, 10] Case Law Cited Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. [2021] 3 SCR 406 : (2021) 6 SCC 771; Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of Taxes [1964] 6 SCR 654 : AIR 1964 SC 1419; Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] Supp. 2 SCR 359 : (1998) 8 SCC 1; Rikhab Chand Jain v. Union of India, 2025 INSC 1337 : 2025 SCC OnLine 2510; Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [2007] 12 SCR 1100 : (2008) 2 SCC 409; All India Institute of Medical Sciences Employees’ Union (Regd.) v. Union of India [1996] Supp. 8 SCR 138 : (1996) 11 SCC 582; Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India [2007] 8 SCR 390 : (2007) 6 SCC 171; M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (2020) 16 SCC 728; Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of [20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.