LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anrv.State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation:
2026 INSC 442
Date:
4 May 2026
Reading time:
10 min read

Legal Analysis: Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 442
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Decision: May 4, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Criminal Appeal under Article 136 against High Court interim order directing police to register FIR.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The complainant company, involved in civil disputes over a property, filed a writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court seeking direction to register an FIR alleging forgery and impersonation in a land measurement application. Without issuing notice to the accused, the High Court directed the police to record the complainant’s statement and take action as per law. Consequently, an FIR was registered against the appellants. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and quashed the FIR, holding that the complainant had bypassed the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) – first approaching the police under Section 173(1), then the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and then the Magistrate under Section 175(3). Direct invocation of writ jurisdiction without exhausting these remedies was premature and impermissible, especially when no exceptional circumstances (violation of fundamental right, lack of jurisdiction, etc.) existed.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Criminal Appeal Nos. Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 1088/2026 and 1133/2026 Bench Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih Date of DecisionMay 4, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 442 Appeal From Interim order dated 17.12.2025 of Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No. 5154/2025


2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

  • Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 (writ jurisdiction).

  • Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS): Sections 173(1) (registration of FIR), 173(4) (recourse to SP), 175(3) (recourse to Magistrate).

  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS): Sections 318, 336, 319, etc. (offences alleged).

Precedents Cited:

  • Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. (2021) – Principles on alternative remedy: writ not to be entertained when efficacious statutory remedy exists, unless exceptions (fundamental right violation, lack of jurisdiction, etc.).

  • Rikhah Chand Jain v. Union of India – Following Thansingh Nathmal, writ jurisdiction should not bypass statutory machinery.

  • Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 – For non-registration of FIR, remedy is before Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC (now Section 175(3) BNSS), not writ petition.

  • Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016) – Reiterated Sakiri Vasu; High Courts should not entertain writ petitions for FIR registration.


3. Relevant Facts

  • Property dispute: Gut No.82, Talwade, Nashik. Complainant company purchased it in 2010, developed a resort. Lease deed executed in 2014. Corporate insolvency resolution process initiated in 2020; moratorium under IBC.

  • Alleged forgery: During moratorium, a sub-lease deed (14.10.2022) executed in favour of respondent No.7. In April 2025, an application for measurement of property was allegedly filed using forged documents and impersonating the complainant’s director.

  • Complaints to Land Records Authority (13.06.2025 & 09.07.2025): Authority held hearing, found that applicant (for measurement) was absent, and advised complainant to seek redressal from competent authority (29.07.2025).

  • Police response (01.09.2025): Police returned the matter to Land Records Department stating the issue related to that department.

  • Writ Petition before High Court: Complainant directly invoked Article 226 seeking direction to register FIR. High Court, without issuing notice to accused, passed interim order (17.12.2025) directing police to record complainant’s statement and take action. FIR No.0194/2025 registered on 23.12.2025.

  • Appeal to Supreme Court: Accused challenged the High Court’s order and the FIR.


4. Issues

  1. Whether the High Court could direct registration of FIR in exercise of writ jurisdiction when the complainant had not exhausted the statutory remedies under BNSS (approach police, then SP, then Magistrate)?

  2. Whether the impugned interim order, passed without notice to the accused, was legally sustainable?


5. Ratio Decidendi

A. Alternative remedy rule (Paras 5-7):
Under Article 226, the High Court has discretion to refuse relief if an efficacious alternative remedy exists. Exceptions apply only for fundamental rights violation, lack of jurisdiction, or violation of natural justice. None were present here.

B. Statutory scheme for FIR registration (Paras 8-9):
BNSS provides a sequential remedy: (i) approach police station under Section 173(1); (ii) if refused, approach Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4); (iii) thereafter, approach Magistrate under Section 175(3). The complainant bypassed all these and directly filed a writ petition – impermissible.

C. Sakiri Vasu followed (Para 10-11):
The Court reiterated that High Courts should discourage writ petitions for non-registration of FIR. The proper forum is the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, who has wide powers to direct registration and monitor investigation.

D. Impugned order set aside (Para 12):
Since the writ petition itself was premature and not maintainable, the interim order directing police action and the consequent FIR are quashed. Liberty reserved to pursue statutory remedies.

E. No opinion on merits (Para 13):
The Court clarified that nothing in the judgment is an expression on the merits of the criminal allegations.


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • Reiteration of alternative remedy rule in criminal complaints: Even for serious offences like forgery, a complainant must exhaust the BNSS remedies (police → SP → Magistrate) before invoking Article 226 for directing FIR registration. Direct writ petition is premature.

  • High Court should not pass interim orders directing FIR registration without notice to accused when the writ petition itself is against settled principles.

  • Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances – it cannot bypass statutory schemes unless exceptional circumstances exist.


7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

  • The Court examined the letter from the Land Records Authority (29.07.2025) which advised the complainant to seek redressal from “competent authority” – this indicated that the complainant had not yet approached the police or Magistrate under BNSS.

  • The police’s letter (01.09.2025) returning the matter to the Land Records Department did not amount to refusal to register FIR; it merely stated the issue was related to land records. The complainant could still have approached the SP or Magistrate.

  • The High Court’s order was passed without issuing notice to the accused, which is a serious procedural lapse when the direction would lead to registration of a criminal case against them.

  • The Court reaffirmed the principle from Sakiri Vasu that Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS has ample power to direct registration and can even monitor investigation.


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a crisp reaffirmation of the settled law that writ courts should not entertain petitions for FIR registration when a complete statutory remedy exists. It prevents the High Court from becoming a court of first instance for criminal complaints, which would overwhelm its docket. The decision protects accused persons from being subjected to criminal proceedings based on high-handed directions without notice.

Potential concerns: In some cases, the police may collude with the accused and refuse to register an FIR even after SP and Magistrate intervention. However, the Court rightly noted that the Magistrate’s powers are wide and can be invoked repeatedly. The judgment does not shut the door entirely; it merely channels the grievance through the proper forum.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by defence counsel to quash FIRs registered pursuant to writ petitions filed without exhausting BNSS remedies. It will also guide High Courts to dismiss such writ petitions at the threshold unless exceptional circumstances exist.


9. Final Outcome

  • Criminal Appeals allowed.

  • Impugned interim order dated 17.12.2025 of Bombay High Court set aside.

  • FIR No.0194/2025 registered at Trimbakeshwar Police Station quashed.

  • Liberty reserved to the complainant to avail statutory remedies under BNSS (approach police, SP, or Magistrate) in accordance with law.

  • No opinion expressed on merits of the case.

  • Pending applications disposed of.


10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

For accused persons: If an FIR is registered pursuant to a High Court order passed in a writ petition filed directly without exhausting BNSS remedies, immediately file an appeal citing this judgment to quash the FIR and the order.

For complainants: Do not rush to the High Court under Article 226 for non-registration of FIR. Follow the statutory sequence – first police (Section 173(1) BNSS), then SP (Section 173(4)), then Magistrate (Section 175(3)). Only in exceptional cases (e.g., threat to life/liberty, complete inaction despite Magistrate’s order) should writ be considered.

For High Courts: Before issuing any direction to register FIR in a writ petition, verify whether the complainant has exhausted BNSS remedies. If not, dismiss the petition with liberty to approach the Magistrate. Avoid passing interim orders without notice to the proposed accused.


11. Court Lines

“The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 is discretionary; it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. Resort to that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained by other mode prescribed by statute.” (Para 5.1)

“If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, his remedy is to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) CrPC or the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ petition.” (Para 6.1)

“Article 226 is not a panacea for all grievances. Entertaining a writ petition in the first instance would bypass the statutory scheme in its entirety. This is impermissible, save and except in special circumstances.” (Para 9-10)


12. Legal Strategy Insight

For defence: In any case where FIR is registered after a High Court order in a writ petition, first check whether the complainant had approached the police, SP, or Magistrate before filing the writ. If not, move to quash relying on Sakiri Vasu and this judgment. Also argue that the High Court order was passed without notice, violating natural justice.

For prosecution/complainant: Ensure you have a paper trail of approaching police (written application), then SP (if police refused), then Magistrate (if SP fails). Only after exhausting these remedies, if the Magistrate also fails to act, can you consider writ jurisdiction. Attach all proof of exhaustion to the writ petition.

For courts: When a writ petition seeks direction to register FIR, first ask: “Has the petitioner approached the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS?” If not, dismiss with liberty. If yes and Magistrate has not acted, then consider writ only if extraordinary circumstances exist.

View full judgment (PDF)