Gujarat HC Dismisses Man’s FIR Plea for Not First Using BNSS Remedies, Leaves Complaint’s Merits Open

The petitioner alleged that his written complaints dated 1 January and 20 January 2026, which he said disclosed a cognizable offence, had not resulted in an FIR. He sought a direction to the police to register an FIR, relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh.

The police reported that they had recorded statements from four persons, none of whom supported the complaint, and that the complaint was consequently filed.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 14, 19 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, without first pursuing the statutory remedies discussed by the Court.

Under Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, a person whose information has not led to registration of an FIR should ordinarily pursue the statutory remedies before approaching the High Court, including recourse to senior police officers and the Magistrate; the availability of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but the High Court should ordinarily decline to interfere.

The Court also relied on Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 INSC 442, which restated that the BNSS provides a sequential mechanism: information is given to the police under Section 173(1), refusal may be taken to the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and thereafter to the Magistrate under Section 175(3); writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not invoked before these efficacious remedies are exhausted, absent circumstances warranting otherwise.

The petitioner had submitted complaints to the police but had approached the High Court directly, without exhausting the statutory remedies identified in the BNSS. Applying Sakiri Vasu and Sujal Vishwas Attavar, the Court held that the existence of those remedies made the petition premature and that no basis had been shown for bypassing them.

The Court therefore did not assess whether the complaint disclosed an offence or whether an FIR ought to have been registered; it expressly left the merits open.

The petitioner was left at liberty to avail those remedies, and the Court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the case.