Writ jurisdiction is not maintainable for FIR registration where an efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists.

Respondent No. 1 initiated maintenance enhancement proceedings under Section 127(1) of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioner in the Family Court, Durg

Pursuant to the guidelines in Rajnish v. Neha, the respondent submitted an affidavit of assets and liabilities

The petitioner alleged that the respondent suppressed material facts regarding her income, educational qualifications, and receipt of government benefits, thereby committing fraud upon the court

The petitioner moved an application under Section 379 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) seeking the registration of an FIR for offenses related to fabricated evidence under Sections 227, 228, 229, 236, 237, 242, 246, and 248 of the BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)

The Family Court rejected this application on January 8, 2026

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

1. Whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct the registration of an FIR when an application for false evidence is rejected by a trial court.

2. Whether the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy to address the alleged submission of false evidence.

The court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction is not maintainable when an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the litigant

It relied on Section 379 of the BNSS and various provisions of the BNS, 2023

The court adhered to the precedents set in Waseem Haider Vs. State of U.P. (Misc. Bench No. 24492 of 2020) and Akhilesh Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh (WPCR No. 333 of 2020), which established that grievances regarding the registration of FIRs or false evidence should be addressed before a competent Magistrate under statutory provisions rather than through a writ petition

The High Court held that the legal controversy regarding the appropriate forum for such grievances is no longer res integra

The court reasoned that the petitioner’s request for the registration of an FIR based on alleged perjury or fabrication of evidence in a Family Court proceeding is governed by specific statutory procedures

By applying the ratio in Waseem Haider and Akhilesh Agrawal, the court determined that the petitioner is legally required to approach a competent Magistrate for redressal

The court found that because a settled and efficacious alternative statutory remedy exists, the invocation of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution was unwarranted and improper in this context

The writ petition was dismissed, but the court granted liberty to the petitioner to avail himself of the appropriate remedy before the competent Magistrate or relevant forum