Efficacious alternative remedy under BNSS bars writ petitions seeking directions for FIR registration.

The petitioner, a farmer, claims to be the lawful owner and cultivator of specific land parcels in Village Revti.

On November 7, 2025, he received information that private respondents (Nos. 7, 8, and 9) were illegally collecting his harvested paddy.

Although the police intervened, the Chowki In-charge (respondent No. 6) recorded a Non-Cognizable (NC) report on November 8, 2025, citing an incorrect Khasra number, which the petitioner alleges was a deliberate attempt to treat a criminal offence as a civil dispute.

Despite subsequent written complaints to the Station House Officer and the Superintendent of Police, no FIR was registered.

The petitioner approached the High Court via a writ petition seeking a direction to register an FIR and to set aside the NC report.

Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction to direct the registration of an FIR when the petitioner has not exhausted alternative statutory remedies.

The court applied the principle of "efficacious alternative remedy," noting that grievances regarding the non-registration of an FIR are governed by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

Specifically, the court highlighted Section 175(3) (formerly Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C.) and Section 223 (formerly Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.), which empower a competent Magistrate to direct an investigation or take cognizance of a complaint.

The court further relied on judicial precedents, including Waseem Haider vs. State of U.P. (2020) and Akhilesh Agrawal vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2023), which establish that writ petitions are generally not maintainable for FIR registration if statutory remedies remain unexhausted.

The court examined the petitioner's prayers for FIR registration and the quashing of the NC report in light of the available legal framework.

It observed that the petitioner’s allegations—concerning the theft of crops and the police's failure to act impartially—fall within the domain of criminal procedure.

The court reasoned that the BNSS provides a robust mechanism for citizens to seek judicial intervention via a Magistrate if the police refuse to register an FIR.

By citing Akhilesh Agrawal, the court emphasized that it would not bypass the specialized hierarchy of the criminal justice system when an "efficacious alternative remedy" is readily available to the petitioner.

The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate forum/Magistrate to seek redressal for his grievances.