Writ jurisdiction for FIR registration is barred if alternative remedies under CrPC or BNSS exist.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a court directive for the registration of an FIR against one Akash @ Bittu based on a complaint dated February 10, 2026

The petitioner further requested an independent investigation by a senior officer/CID and the submission of a status report

The petition arose from the alleged inaction of the police authorities regarding the petitioner's initial complaint

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable for seeking the registration of an FIR when alternative statutory remedies under the Cr.P.C. or BNSS have not been exhausted?

The Court relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008) 2 SCC 409 and Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 171, which mandate that aggrieved parties must approach a Magistrate rather than the High Court for the non-registration of an FIR

The Court emphasized the "wide powers" of the Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 175(3) BNSS) to order registration and monitor investigations

It also noted the hierarchy of alternative remedies: approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) Cr.P.C./Section 36 Cr.P.C., and if unsuccessful, filing an application under Section 156(3) or a criminal complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

The Court analyzed the settled legal position that High Courts should discourage the practice of entertaining writ petitions or Section 482 petitions for FIR registration when alternative remedies exist

Citing Sakiri Vasu, the Court noted that Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. is "wide enough" to include all incidental powers necessary to ensure a proper investigation, including the power to order an FIR

The Court reasoned that although an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar to a writ petition, the High Court should not ordinarily interfere when the petitioner has a direct statutory path through the jurisdictional Magistrate

Consequently, the Court found no justification to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 in the present facts

However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. or Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)