New Delhi: The Supreme Court has reiterated that a person alleging non-registration of an FIR or improper investigation should ordinarily first pursue the remedies available under the statutory criminal procedure framework rather than directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution or invoking its inherent powers.
The observation was made in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. The State of Maharashtra (2026), relying on the principles laid down by the apex court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2008).
The Supreme Court held that extraordinary writ jurisdiction should generally not be invoked when an alternative and equally efficacious statutory remedy is available. However, the court noted that exceptional circumstances or urgency may justify intervention.
The court also highlighted the sequential mechanism provided under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) for initiating criminal proceedings.
Under Section 173(1) of the BNSS, information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence is first required to be submitted to the officer in charge of the police station, who is responsible for registering the FIR.
If the police refuse to register the FIR, the complainant can approach the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS. If the grievance remains unresolved, the person can thereafter approach the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
The Supreme Court emphasised that this statutory sequence provides an established mechanism for addressing grievances relating to registration of FIRs and police investigation. Therefore, parties should ordinarily exhaust these remedies before invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of constitutional courts, unless the circumstances warrant immediate judicial intervention.
