Two Complaints, No FIR: Gujarat HC Dismisses Man’s FIR Plea As He Bypassed Statutory Remedies

The petitioner alleged that his written complaints dated 10 October 2025 and 28 November 2025, said to disclose cognizable offences, had not resulted in registration of an FIR.

He petitioned under Articles 21 and 226 seeking directions to register an FIR and investigate the complaints.

The State placed before the Court a police report stating that witness statements had been recorded and no cognizable offence was disclosed.

The petitioner had approached the High Court without first pursuing the available statutory remedies.

Under Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, a person alleging non-registration of an FIR should ordinarily pursue the statutory sequence—approach the senior police officer under Sections 154(3) and 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and, if necessary, the Magistrate under Section 156(3), or file a complaint under Section 200; the existence of an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to writ jurisdiction, but ordinarily warrants declining interference.

The Court also relied on Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 442, which describes the corresponding BNSS framework: Sections 173(1), 173(4), and 175(3) provide for approaching the police station, the Superintendent of Police, and then the Magistrate, respectively; writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked before those remedies are exhausted, absent circumstances warranting otherwise.

The Court found that the complaints had not led to FIR registration, but the petitioner had approached it directly without exhausting the statutory remedies available under the criminal procedure framework.

Applying Sakiri Vasu and Sujal Vishwas Attavar, the Court held that the petitioner should first pursue those remedies and that the writ petition was premature. It therefore declined to examine whether the complaints disclosed a cognizable offence, expressly leaving the merits open.

The Court granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the other efficacious remedies available under law. It made clear that it had not examined the merits of the case.