VINUBHAI VALLABHBHAI DHORAJIYA PRESIDENT OF GAYATRI NAGAR SOCIETY vs STATE OF GUJARAT

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (DIRECTION)
NO. 13529 of 2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI Sd/-

=====================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
=====================================================
VINUBHAI VALLABHBHAI DHORAJIYA PRESIDENT OF
GAYATRI NAGAR SOCIETY
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.
=====================================================
Appearance:
MR. MAULIK M SONI(7249) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MS DHWANI R. TRIPATHI, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=====================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

Date : 27/10/2026
JUDGMENT
Rule returnable forthwith. Learned APP Ms. Dhwani
R. Tripathi appearing for the respondent – State waive service of
notice of Rule.
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
Page 1 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
“ A. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to Admit / Allow this
Petition;
B. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to issue writ of
Mandamus and issue direction upon the concerned
Respondent Authority to take Necessary Steps in connection
with Written Complaint dated 21.07.2026 filed by the
Present Petitioner before the Respondent No. 2 (at
ANNEXURE "B") .
C. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY be pleased to pass such orders
as thought fit in the interest of justice.”
2. Essentially, by way of this petition, petitioner
intended to register the FIR in regards to Annexure-B.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni
appearing for the petitioner and learned APP Ms. Dhwani R.
Tripathi appearing for the respondent – State.
4. Learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni appearing for
the petitioner submits that the concerned police station as well
as the Police Commissioner, Surat, has been given a written
complaint alleging the various allegations against the persons
mentioned therein, but the concerned police station and the
Police Commissioner are not responding to the written complaint
submitted by the petitioner. Therefore, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner submitted to invoke the writ
jurisdiction and direct the respondent/s to register the FIR in
accordance with the law.
4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Maulik M. Soni appearing for
the petitioner further submits that the entire issue belongs to
Page 2 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
taking up the illegal possession of the common plot of the
Gayatri Nagar Society in Surat and since it was alleged against
the previous President of the society that he being influential
person, has taken over the illegal possession of the common plot
of the the Gayatri Nagar Society, the concerned Police authority
was required to examine the issue in its true and correct
perspective and to register the FIR as information of the
cognizable offence is unraveled in the written complaint. He
would further submit that, in the case on hand, police authority,
to whom, written complaint has been lodged, did not bother to
respond the same or did not communicate outward of the written
complaint.
4.2 Mainly upon above submission, learned advocate
appearing for the petitioner submitted to pass the necessary
order in regards to the prayer made in the petition.
5. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Dhwani R. Tripathi
appearing for the respondent – State submitted that it would not
be open for the petitioner to approach the High Court to invoke
the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for registration of the FIR, in absence of
any special circumstances. It is further submitted that therefore,
if the petitioner has any grievance that his FIR has not been
registered by the Police, learned APP submitted that the
petitioner has to consume regular remedy to approach the
concerned jurisdictional Court for ventilating his grievance.
5.1 In support of her submission, reliance has been
placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Page 3 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage &
Ors. , reported in 2016 (6) SCC 277 as well as in the recent
judgment in the case of Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of
Maharashtra , reported in 2026 (2) GLR 1132.
5.2 Mainly upon above submissions, learned APP
submitted to dismiss this petition.
6. Regard being had to the rival submissions of the
learned advocates for both the sides, at the outset, let me
observe that the grievance ventilated by the petitioner in this
petition, is completely covered by the judgment of the Supreme
Court in case of Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (Supra) . Para 5 to
7 thereof are relevant, which reads as under:-
“5. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. &
Others, reported in AIR 2008 SC 907 [also cited as (2008) 2
SCC 409], that if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R. has
not been registered by the police, or having been registered,
proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of
the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the
concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. If such
an application under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. is made and the
Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the F.I.R.
to be registered, or if it has already been registered, he can
direct proper investigation to be done which includes in his
discretion, if he deems it necessary, recommending change
of the Investigating Officer, so that a proper investigation is
done in the matter. We have said this in Sakiri Vasu's case
because what we have found in this country is that the High
Courts have been flooded with writ petitions praying for
registration of the first information report or praying for a
proper investigation.
Page 4 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
6. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts entertain
such writ petitions, then they will be flooded with such writ
petitions and will not be able to do any other work except
dealing with such writ petitions. Hence, we have held that
the complainant must avail of his alternate remedy to
approach the concerned Magistrate under Section 156(3),
Cr.P.C. and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if
prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first
information report and also ensure a proper investigation in
the matter, and he can also monitor the investigation.
7. In view of the settled position in Sakiri Vasu's case
(supra), the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be
sustained and is hereby set aside. The concerned
Magistrate is directed to ensure proper investigation into the
alleged offence under Section 156(3), Cr.P.C. and if he
deems it necessary, he can also recommend to the
S.S.P./S.P. concerned change of the Investigating Officer, so
that a proper investigation is done. The Magistrate can also
monitor the investigation, though he cannot himself
investigate (as investigation is the job of the police).”
7. As aforesaid, recently the Supreme Court in the case
of Sujal Vishwas Attavar (Supra) addressed the issue. Para 4,
5, 6, 6.1, 6.2, 7, 8 and 11 are relevant, which reads as under:-
“ 4. In that view of the matter, the accused-appellant(s) are
before us contending that the registration of the FIR is a
direct consequence of the directions issued in writ
proceedings, and is therefore, contrary to law since
alternative remedies available under the statutory
framework have not been exhausted. It is further contended
that the FIR has been lodged as a counterblast to the civil
disputes pending between the parties. We have heard the
learned senior counsel for the appellant(s) and learned
counsel for the respondent(s) as also perused the material
placed on record.
5. At the outset, it would be apposite to reiterate the settled
principle of law governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
While the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of
Page 5 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
the Constitution of India is wide, it is well established that
such jurisdiction is extraordinary, discretionary and subject
to certain self-imposed restrictions. In Radha Krishan
Industries v. State of H.P., (2021) 6 SCC 771 a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has summarized the principles governing
the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the
presence of an alternative remedy and held as under:
“27. The principles of law which emerge are that:
27.1. The power under Article 226 of the
Constitution to issue writs can be exercised not only
for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for
any other purpose as well.
27.2. The High Court has the discretion not to
entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions
placed on the power of the High Court is where an
effective alternate remedy is available to the
aggrieved person.
27.3. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy
arise where: (a) the writ petition has been filed for
the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by
Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a
violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the
order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction;
or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.
27.4. An alternate remedy by itself does not divest
the High Court of its powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution in an appropriate case though
ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained
when an efficacious alternate remedy is provided by
law.
27.5. When a right is created by a statute, which
itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for
enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to
that particular statutory remedy before invoking the
discretionary remedy under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This rule of exhaustion of statutory
remedies is a rule of policy, convenience and
discretion.
27.6. In cases where there are disputed questions of
fact, the High Court may decide to decline
jurisdiction in a writ petition. However, if the High
Court is objectively of the view that the nature of the
Page 6 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
controversy requires the exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, such a view would not readily be
interfered with.”
(emphasis supplied)
[See also: Thansingh Nathmal v. Superintendent of
Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 and Whirlpool Corporation
v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1]
6. In the same vein, this Court has duly considered the
question as to whether the remedy under Article 226 can be
availed of if there exists inaction and/or nonaction by the
police in registering the FIR relating to a cognizable offence.
We may refer to few such pronouncements:
6.1 In Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court observed:
“11. In this connection we would like to state that if
a person has a grievance that the police station is
not registering his FIR under Section 154 CrPC, then
he can approach the Superintendent of Police under
Section 154(3) CrPC by an application in writing.
Even if that does not yield any satisfactory result in
the sense that either the FIR is still not registered, or
that even after registering it no proper investigation
is held, it is open to the aggrieved person to file an
application under Section 156(3) CrPC before the
learned Magistrate concerned. …
… … …
25. … 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
CrPC. 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…
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
Page 7 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
Section 154(3) CrPC or other police officer referred to
in Section 36 CrPC. 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) CrPC
instead of rushing to the High Court by way of a writ
petition or a petition under Section 482 CrPC.
Moreover, he has a further remedy of filing a
criminal complaint under Section 200 CrPC. 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 discourage the practice of filing a
writ petition or petition under Section 482 CrPC
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.
…
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
[See also: All India Institute of Medical Sciences
Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of India, (1996)
11 SCC 582; Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India,
(2007) 6 SCC 171; M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki,
(2020) 16 SCC 728; and Anurag Bhatnagar v. State
(NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1514]
6.2 Following the law laid in Sakiri Vasu (supra), this Court
in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage,
(2016) 6 SCC 277 observed as under:
Page 8 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
“2. This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of
U.P. [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409 :
(2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC 907], that 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 done, then the
remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned
under Section 156(3) CrPC. … We have said this in
Sakiri Vasu case [Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008)
2 SCC 409 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 440 : AIR 2008 SC
907] because what we have found in this country is
that the High Courts have been flooded with writ
petitions praying for registration of the first
information report or praying for a proper
investigation.
3. We are of the opinion that if the High Courts
entertain such writ petitions, then they will be
flooded with such writ petitions and will not be able
to do any other work except dealing with such writ
petitions. Hence, we have held that the complainant
must avail of his alternate remedy to approach the
Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC
and if he does so, the Magistrate will ensure, if
prima facie he is satisfied, registration of the first
information report and also ensure a proper
investigation in the matter, and he can also monitor
the investigation.”
(emphasis supplied)
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.
Page 9 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
8. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023
(hereinafter referred to as ‘BNSS’) (erstwhile Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CrPC’))
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 FIR, recourse lies
before the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police under
Section 173(4) BNSS and, thereafter, before the Magistrate,
under Section 175(3) BNSS.
xxx xxx xxx
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.”
8. In view of the above and applying the aforesaid
dictum to the case on hand, since petition is failed to showcase
any special circumstances to invoke the extra-ordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ergo
I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to
establish his case which compels the Court to exercise its extra-
ordinary jurisdiction.
Page 10 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026

R/SCR.A/13529/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 27/10/2026
(GJHC240661882026)
9. Consequently, this petition is dismissed .
Rule stands discharged.
Sd/-
(J.C. DOSHI, J.)
Raj
Page 11 of 11
Uploaded by Raj Subhash Dhobi(HC01779) on Wed Oct 28 2026 Downloaded on : Wed Oct 28 12:10:07 IST 2026