Writ jurisdiction is ordinarily unavailable for FIR non-registration where BNSS remedies remain unexhausted.

The petitioner claimed that his late father owned land covered by Dag No. 564 and Periodic Patta No. 71 at Dadara, Kamrup, Assam, on which four residential houses had been constructed.

Two houses were allegedly allotted to the petitioner and two to his brother, respondent no. 7, with both residing separately on the property since their father’s death in 2004.

The petitioner alleged that in May 2026 respondent no. 7 demolished his two houses without notice and removed movable property valued at approximately ₹5,00,000.

The petitioner submitted an FIR to the Dadara Police Outpost on 20 May 2026, which was allegedly not registered. He thereafter submitted a representation to the Senior Superintendent of Police on 16 June 2026, but claimed that no action followed.

He consequently invoked Article 226 seeking directions for registration of the FIR and investigation against respondent no. 7.

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR is maintainable when the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy before the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (“BNSS”).

Whether, on the facts presented, the petitioner had established any exceptional circumstance warranting direct exercise of the High Court’s writ jurisdiction despite the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy.

Section 173(1) and (4), BNSS provides the sequential remedy for reporting a cognizable offence, including approaching the Superintendent of Police upon refusal by the officer in charge to register the information.

Section 175(3), BNSS empowers the jurisdictional Magistrate, upon consideration of the application and supporting affidavit and after such inquiry as considered necessary, to order investigation.

Relying on Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409, and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, the Court held that a complainant aggrieved by non-registration or defective investigation should ordinarily approach the Magistrate rather than directly invoke Article 226.

The Court also applied Sujal Viswas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, (2026) 5 SCR 273, which reaffirmed that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked before exhausting the sequential remedies under the BNSS, absent special circumstances such as an urgent threat to life or liberty.

The petitioner had approached the police outpost and thereafter the Senior Superintendent of Police, but there was no assertion or material showing that he had approached the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3), BNSS.

Since that provision supplied an efficacious statutory mechanism for seeking an order directing investigation, the High Court held that entertaining the writ petition would improperly make it a court of first instance and bypass the statutory scheme.

No exceptional circumstance, including any imminent threat to life or liberty, was shown to justify departure from the normal rule requiring exhaustion of the alternative remedy.

The Court therefore declined to examine whether the allegations actually disclosed a criminal offence, expressly leaving the merits open.

The petitioner was granted liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under that provision in accordance with law and applicable procedural requirements.

The Court clarified that its observations would not be treated as an opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether any criminal offence had been committed.