ANSARI ZAHIR JALALUDDIN vs STATE OF GUJARAT

Court
Gujarat High Court

R/SCR.A/13249/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240684262026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION - TO LODGE
FIR/COMPLAINT) NO. 13249 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
ANSARI ZAHIR JALALUDDIN
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SULAIMAN I LABBAI(11342) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOOL CHAND TYAGI

Date : 27/10/2026

JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner herein had preferred with captioned petition under
Articles 14, 21 & 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 528 of
BNSS, 2023, seeking the following main & interim reliefs:-
a) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus
or appropriate writ, direction or order to the Respondents
to Register FIR and Investigate;
Interim Relief :-
b) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent to
Secure CCTV Footage of Rakhiyal Police Station "From
21:48 of 20.08.2026 to 02:00 of 21.08.2026" pending
hearing, admission and final disposal of the Petition;
c) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondents to
provide adequate Armed Police Protection to the Petitioner,
Page 1 of 6
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:51 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13249/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240684262026)
pending hearing, admission and final disposal of the
Petition;
d) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to grant such further and
other order or relief as deemed fit and proper in the
interest of justice;
2. Issue Rule to the respondents, returnable forthwith. Learned APP,
Mr. K B Antani accepts and waives service of Rule on behalf of all the
respondents. The report of Police Sub Inspector, Rakhiyal Police Station,
Ahmedabad, placed on record by the learned APP is taken on record.
3. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 20.08.2026,
three police officers visited the petitioner's factory situated at Rakhiyal
and took him to the first floor of the Rakhial Police Station. They called
Altaf Bhai, a local gangster who immediately arrived at the police
station along with Sherubhai, Kalam, and Siraj. The Petitioner was
beaten up in the police station and they intimidated the Petitioner by
demanding money and threatened that the petitioner would be falsely
implicated in cases. Thereafter, the said Altafbhai Basi, Sheru Bhai,
Kalam, and Siraj took the petitioner to Altafbhai Basi's place and
demanded Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs) from the petitioner,
assuring that he would provide protection to the petitioner across the
entire State of Gujarat. Therafter, on 22.08.2026, the petitioner paid Rs.
5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) to Altaf Bhai. Thereafter, on
24.08.2026, the petitioner paid Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs) in
cash to Altaf Bhai through Siraj, and on 25.08.2026, the petitioner paid
another Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) in cash to Altaf Bhai
Page 2 of 6
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:51 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13249/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240684262026)
through Siraj. Thereafter, on 28.08.2026, the petitioner made a
complaint to the police requesting the registration of an FIR and
seeking police protection, however, till date, the police authorities have
not initiated any action on the said complaint preferred by the petitioner
herein. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has approached this
Court with a prayer inter alia seeking registration of FIR and seeking
interim protection.
5. In response, learned APP invited the attention of this Court to the
report of the Police Inspector, wherein it is stated that pursuant to the
complaint made by the petitioner herein, the petitioner was called to
the police station to supply evidence in support of his allegations.
However, the petitioner has failed to visit the police station till date. It
was further submitted that the petitioner was also instructed to contact
helpline number 112 for police protection, and the petitioner has not
cooperated in supplying the evidence.
6. Having considered the submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record, it
emerges from the records that the petitioner had made a complaint
with the police on 28.08.2026 seeking registration of FIR as well as for
police protection. However, from the report submitted by the
Investigating Officer, it appears that the petitioner has neither visited
the police station nor has supplied any evidence in support of his
complaint.
7. In my considered view, the petitioner could have availed the
appropriate statutory remedies available under law prior to approaching
Page 3 of 6
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:51 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13249/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240684262026)
this Court directly for seeking directions of registration of FIR and grant
of police protection. At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer to the
judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sakiri
Vasu vs State Of U.P. and Ors. reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409 ,
wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“25. We have elaborated on the above matter because we often
find that when someone has a grievance that his FIR has not been
registered at the police station and/or a proper investigation is not
being done by the police, he rushes to the High Court to file a writ
petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. We are of the
opinion that the High Court should not encourage this practice
and should ordinarily refuse to interfere in such matters, and
relegate the petitioner to his alternating remedy, firstly under
Section 154(3) and Section 36 Cr.P.C. before the concerned police
officers, and if that is of no avail, by approaching the concerned
Magistrate under Section 156(3).
26. If a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been
registered by the police station his first remedy is to approach the
Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. or other
police officer referred to in Section 36 Cr.P.C. If despite
approaching the Superintendent of Police or the officer referred to
in Section 36 his grievance still persists, then he can approach a
Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. instead of rushing to the
High Court by way of a writ petition or a petition under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Moreover he has a further remedy of filing a criminal
complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. Why then should writ
petitions or Section 482 petitions be entertained when there are
so many alternative remedies?
27. As we have already observed above, the Magistrate has very
wide powers to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a
proper investigation, and for this purpose he can monitor the
investigation to ensure that the investigation is done properly
(though he cannot investigate himself). The High Court should
Page 4 of 6
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:51 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13249/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240684262026)
discourage the practice of filing a writ petition or petition under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. simply because a person has a grievance that
his FIR has not been registered by the police, or after being
registered, proper investigation has not been done by the police.
For this grievance, the remedy lies under Sections 36 and 154(3)
before the concerned police officers, and if that is of no avail,
under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the Magistrate or by filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and not by filing a
writ petition or a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
28. It is true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a
writ petition, but it is equally well settled that if there is an
alternative remedy the High Court should not ordinarily interfere.”
8. Moreover, recently in Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in 2026 INSC 442 , the
Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as under:-
“7. Keeping in view the above exposition of law, we find that the
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India 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.
8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (erstwhile Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973) provides a structured sequential
mechanism for initiating criminal prosecution. The statutory
framework contemplates that information relating to the
commission of a cognizable offence is first placed before the
officer-in-charge of the police station and an FIR is registered
under Section 173(1) BNSS. In the event of refusal to register the
Page 5 of 6
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:51 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13249/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240684262026)
FIR, recourse lies before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police
under Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate,
under Section 175(3) BNSS.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
11. The 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 [See: Sakiri Vasu (supra)
and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (supra)]. In the present facts, the
complainant Company, has not exhausted the sequential statutory
remedies available under BNSS. There is, therefore, no foundation
to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court for the
reason that efficacious and efficient alternative remedies exists.
Hence, at this stage, we find the instant writ petition to be
premature, and, therefore, not fit to be entertained.”
9. Having considered the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the aforesaid judgments, I am of the considered view that the
petitioner ought to have availed other efficacious remedies available
under the law before approaching this Court. Thus, in light of the above
discussion, the present petition, being devoid of any merit, is liable to
be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed . However, the petitioner is
at liberty to avail other efficacious remedies available under the law.
10. Further, in the meantime, appropriate steps shall be taken by the
Officer-in-charge of the concerned Police Station to provide necessary
protection to the Petitioner forthwith.
(MOOL CHAND TYAGI, J)
ARUN
Page 6 of 6
Uploaded by ARUN B(HC02368) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 17:01:51 IST 2026