Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable for FIR non-registration before exhausting BNSS statutory remedies.

The eleven petitioners, members of the same family residing at Village Kupotimari, Morigaon, claimed ownership and possession of land in the village.

On 17 August 2025, while petitioner no. 3 was ploughing the family land, an armed group allegedly trespassed onto the property and assaulted members of the family, resulting in serious injuries and the death of Ibrahim Ali in hospital.

An FIR was lodged on 18 August 2025 as Bhuragaon P.S. Case No. 49/2025 under Sections 61(2), 103(1), 118(2) and 109 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, naming twenty-four accused persons, including several of the present petitioners.

Seven petitioners surrendered and were taken into custody during the investigation.

The petitioners thereafter approached the High Court seeking directions for registration and investigation of the alleged offences, including investigation by the CBI or a Special Task Force, and police protection for petitioner nos. 1 to 7.

Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking registration and investigation of FIRs was maintainable when the petitioners had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) of the BNSS?

Whether the petitioners had established grounds for directions for investigation by the CBI or a Special Task Force and for police protection?

Section 173(4) of the BNSS provides that an aggrieved person whose information is not recorded by the officer-in-charge may approach the Superintendent of Police, and, if the grievance remains unresolved, apply to the Magistrate; Section 175(3) empowers the Magistrate, upon considering an application supported by an affidavit and conducting such inquiry as necessary, to order an investigation.

Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Court held that the Magistrate possesses wide powers to direct registration of an FIR, order proper investigation and monitor the investigation, and that the High Court should ordinarily decline writ jurisdiction where such alternative remedies exist.

The same principle was reiterated in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277.

The Court also relied on Sujal Viswas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 5 SCR 273, which held that Article 226 should not ordinarily be invoked in the first instance for non-registration or improper investigation of an FIR when efficacious statutory remedies under the BNSS are available, unless special circumstances or urgent threats to life or liberty are shown.

The Court found that, although the petitioners had allegedly approached the police authorities and senior police officers, they had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate for relief under Sections 173(4) read with 175(3) of the BNSS.

Applying the principles in Sakiri Vasu, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe and Sujal Viswas Attavar, the Court held that the statutory remedy was an efficacious and structured mechanism for seeking registration of the FIR and proper investigation.

Direct invocation of Article 226 therefore bypassed the statutory scheme and rendered the writ petition premature.

The Court further held that the materials on record did not establish a prima facie basis for directing investigation by the CBI or a Special Task Force, or for granting police protection to petitioner nos. 1 to 7.

The petitioners were granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate in accordance with law and prescribed procedure.

Their prayers for CBI/Special Task Force investigation and police protection were not granted.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to maintainability and did not constitute any opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether the alleged facts disclosed any criminal offence.