Availability of efficacious alternative remedies under BNSS bars writ petitions seeking independent criminal investigations.

On October 2, 2025, the petitioner and his nephew, Naresh Rathiya, witnessed a road accident involving a truck and two bikers

Police arrived at the scene and placed the deceased bikers and Naresh Rathiya—who was allegedly alive and healthy at the time—into an ambulance

The following day, the petitioner was informed that Naresh had died; his body was found at Civil Hospital, Dharamjaigarh

While a post-mortem report attributed the death to "blunt trauma to the head" consistent with an accident, the petitioner alleged that Naresh was assaulted by police personnel in the ambulance

Despite registering a 'Merg' (accidental death report) under Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the petitioner contended that no fair investigation was conducted and no FIR was lodged

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking an independent investigation and compensation

1. Whether the High Court should direct an independent investigation into the death of Naresh Rathiya under its writ jurisdiction despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies

The court primarily applied the principle of "efficacious alternative remedy" regarding criminal investigation procedures

Section 194 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, regarding death inquiries

Sections 175(3) and 223 of the BNSS (the current counterparts to Sections 156(3) and 200 of the CrPC), which empower a Magistrate to order an investigation or take cognizance of a complaint

The precedents of Waseem Haider v. State of U.P. (Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020) and Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPCR No. 333 of 2020), which established that writ petitions for investigation are not maintainable when statutory remedies before a Magistrate remain unexhausted

The Court evaluated the petitioner’s grievance regarding the suspicious nature of the death and the alleged police misconduct

The Court observed that the petitioner had not yet exhausted the procedural remedies available under the BNSS, specifically the option to approach a competent Magistrate to seek an order for an FIR or to file a private complaint

By citing established case law from the Allahabad High Court and its own previous divisions, the Court determined that the controversy regarding the bypass of statutory remedies was well-settled

The Court reasoned that the petitioner’s concerns could be adequately addressed by the lower judiciary, making the exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 unnecessary at this stage

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue appropriate legal remedies before the competent Court or forum in accordance with the law