High Courts should ordinarily refuse FIR non-registration writ petitions when Magistrate remedies remain available.

The petitioner claimed to be the registered owner of vehicle No. MP54ZC4757, which he had given to respondent No. 4 on rent for 11 months for ₹3,25,000. He alleged that respondent No. 4 neither paid the rent nor returned the vehicle. A cheque for ₹3,25,000 issued by respondent No. 4 was dishonoured, and the petitioner had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which an arrest warrant was issued. The petitioner also complained to the Superintendent of Police, Umaria, but alleged that no action followed.

He filed this Article 226 petition seeking, among other reliefs, a direction to decide his representation, register an FIR, and require respondent No. 4 to return the vehicle.

The State opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner had an alternative remedy before the competent Magistrate.

Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition seeking action on a police complaint and registration of an FIR when statutory remedies before the police and Magistrate are available.

Whether the petitioner’s further request for return of the vehicle warranted relief in this writ petition.

Under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, an aggrieved person may approach the Superintendent of Police and, if that does not resolve the grievance, apply to the Magistrate, who may direct registration of an FIR and proper investigation; a complaint under Section 200 CrPC is also available.

Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, establish that a person ordinarily should pursue these remedies rather than directly invoke the High Court’s writ jurisdiction over non-registration of an FIR or inadequate investigation.

The Court also relied on Shweta Bhadoriya v. State of M.P. & Ors., (2017) 1 MPLJ (Cri) 338, and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011, decided on 20 March 2020.

It cited Ashiwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437, for the statutory remedies under the CrPC and corresponding provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), including Sections 173(4), 175 and 223 BNSS.

The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking police action and an FIR, but the Court held that the statutory framework provided an alternative route: the petitioner could pursue relief before the competent Magistrate under the applicable CrPC/BNSS provisions.

Applying the authorities discouraging writ petitions in such circumstances, the Court declined to entertain the petition because the petitioner had not availed himself of that alternative remedy.

Although the petition also sought return of the vehicle, the Court gave no separate determination of that claim.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned Magistrate under the applicable provisions of the CrPC/BNSS for redressal of his grievance.

No specific direction was issued for registration of an FIR, decision on the representation, or return of the vehicle.