Former Society President’s Alleged Common-Plot Takeover: Gujarat HC Rejects FIR Plea, Citing BNSS Remedies

In brief

The question

Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct action on a complaint seeking registration of an FIR, when statutory remedies are available.

The court held

The Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 because the petitioner had not shown special circumstances justifying intervention and had available statutory remedies.

It also directed

The petition was dismissed and the Rule discharged.

01Facts

The petitioner alleged that the previous president of Gayatri Nagar Society had unlawfully taken possession of the society’s common plot in Surat.

pp. 1–3

He stated that he had submitted a written complaint to the police station and the Police Commissioner, Surat, but received no response. He sought a writ directing the authorities to take necessary steps on the complaint, in substance seeking registration of an FIR.

pp. 1–3

The State opposed the petition, arguing that the petitioner should first pursue the statutory remedies available under the criminal procedure framework.

p. 3

02Issues

i.Whether the High Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct action on a complaint seeking registration of an FIR, when statutory remedies are available.

pp. 2–3, 9–10

ii.Whether the petitioner demonstrated special circumstances warranting departure from the ordinary rule requiring exhaustion of those remedies.

p. 10

03Law Applied

Article 226 confers wide but discretionary jurisdiction; ordinarily, a writ petition should not be entertained where an effective statutory alternative remedy exists, subject to recognized exceptions and circumstances of urgency.

pp. 5–7, 9

Under Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, a person alleging non-registration of an FIR should ordinarily pursue the prescribed police and Magistrate remedies rather than approach the High Court in the first instance.

pp. 4–8

The judgment also relied on Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 (2) GLR 1132, which identifies the BNSS sequence: information to the police under Section 173(1), recourse to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) if registration is refused, and thereafter an application to the Magistrate under Section 175(3).

pp. 5–10

Provisions in the judgment · 7 · Linked ones open on LawLens

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

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 173 Section 175

04Reasoning

The petitioner’s grievance was that the police had not acted on his complaint, and the relief sought effectively required registration of an FIR.

pp. 2–3

Applying the cited authorities, the Court held that such a grievance should ordinarily be pursued through the statutory mechanisms under the BNSS, rather than by invoking Article 226 at the outset.

pp. 8–10

The petition did not establish any special circumstances warranting the High Court’s intervention or displacing the availability of those remedies.

p. 10