Man Alleging Police-Station Beating And ₹14 Lakh Extortion Gets Protection, But Gujarat HC Rejects FIR Plea For Not Exhausting Statutory Remedies

The petitioner alleged that police officers took him from his factory to Rakhiyal Police Station on 20 August 2026, where he was assaulted and threatened by police officers and private individuals, who later demanded money from him.

He alleged that he paid a total of ₹14 lakh to Altaf Bhai, directly and through an intermediary, on 22, 24 and 25 August 2026.

On 28 August 2026, he complained to the police, seeking registration of an FIR and police protection.

He then petitioned the High Court under Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS, seeking directions to register an FIR and investigate, preserve police-station CCTV footage, and provide protection.

The police report stated that the petitioner had been asked to attend the station and provide supporting evidence but had not done so.

The Court relied on the alternative-remedy principle in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409: ordinarily, a complainant alleging non-registration of an FIR must pursue the prescribed remedies before approaching the High Court, including recourse to the police hierarchy and the Magistrate.

It also applied Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2026 INSC 442, which stated that the BNSS provides a sequential remedy: information is first given to the police under Section 173(1); on refusal, the complainant may approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4), and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 175(3).

The High Court may intervene where the circumstances warrant, including urgency.

The petition invoked Articles 14, 21 and 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS.

The Court noted that although the petitioner had complained to the police, the police report indicated that he had not attended the station or supplied evidence supporting his allegations.

It held that he had not pursued the available statutory remedies before seeking the High Court’s intervention, and that the petition was therefore premature under the principles in Sakiri Vasu and Sujal Vishwas Attavar.

The Court dismissed the petition without determining the merits of the allegations, but separately directed the officer in charge of the police station to take appropriate steps to provide the petitioner necessary protection forthwith.

It left him at liberty to pursue those remedies and directed the officer in charge of the concerned police station to provide necessary protection to him forthwith.