Despite Police Complaints, Gujarat HC Rejects FIR Plea, Says Complainant Must First Use BNSS Remedies

In brief

The question

1. Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies under the BNSS

The court held

The Court dismissed the petition as premature and devoid of merit at this stage, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the other efficacious remedies available under law

It also directed

It expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case

01Facts

The petitioner sought a writ directing the police authorities to register an FIR on the basis of written complaints dated 24 December 2025 and 20 February 2026, and sought directions for investigation and consideration of his representation

p. 1

The State submitted a police report stating that a preliminary inquiry had been conducted, the petitioner’s statement recorded, and no offence found; it also stated that the petitioner had made six complaints

p. 2

The petitioner approached the High Court without first pursuing the statutory remedies available under the BNSS

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR when the petitioner has not exhausted the statutory remedies under the BNSS

pp. 3–6

ii.2. Whether the Court should examine the merits of the petitioner’s allegations at this stage

p. 6

03Law Applied

Article 226 jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked at the first instance where an efficacious statutory remedy is available.

Under the BNSS, information about a cognizable offence is placed before the police station under Section 173(1); on refusal to register an FIR, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 175(3)

p. 5

Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Court reiterated that a complainant should ordinarily pursue the statutory police and Magistrate remedies rather than immediately approach the High Court

pp. 3–4

It also relied on Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 INSC 442, which reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked before available BNSS remedies are exhausted, absent circumstances warranting otherwise

pp. 4–5

Provisions in the judgment · 20 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 15 provisions

Section 528 Section 81 Section 83 Section 61 Section 189 Section 190 Section 199 Section 125 Section 316 Section 318 Section 111 Section 352 Section 308 Section 173 Section 175

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482 Section 154 Section 36 Section 156 Section 200

04Reasoning

The petitioner sought directions for FIR registration and investigation but had not pursued the sequential remedies available under the BNSS before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction

pp. 3, 5–6

Applying Sakiri Vasu and Sujal Vishwas Attavar, the Court held that the petition was premature and that the petitioner should first avail the statutory remedies

p. 6

The police report’s account of the preliminary inquiry did not lead the Court to determine whether the alleged offences were made out; the merits were expressly left open

p. 2, 6

05Holding

The Court dismissed the petition as premature and devoid of merit at this stage, while granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the other efficacious remedies available under law

p. 6

It expressly clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case

p. 6

LawLens.Gujarat High Court

Original Court PDF