Writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked for FIR non-registration where Section 156(3) CrPC remedy exists.

The petitioner alleged that her husband’s elder brother had executed a sale deed by misrepresenting it as a mortgage deed.

She submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur, on 24 June 2026. Although her statement was recorded by the police on 6 July 2026, she alleged that no further action had been taken.

The State opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy before the competent Magistrate under Sections 156(3), 200, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

Whether the High Court should entertain a petition under Article 226 seeking registration of an FIR and proper investigation when the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedies under Sections 154(3), 156(3), and 200 of the CrPC.

Whether the petitioner should be relegated to the remedy of approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of an FIR and supervision or direction of a proper investigation.

The Court applied the statutory remedies under Sections 36 and 154(3) CrPC, under which an aggrieved informant may approach senior police authorities where the police fail to register an FIR, and Sections 156(3) and 200 CrPC, under which the Magistrate may direct registration of an FIR, order a proper investigation, monitor the investigation, or proceed on a private complaint.

Relying principally on Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., (2008) 2 SCC 409, the Court held that the Magistrate’s power under Section 156(3) is wide enough to include directing registration of an FIR and ensuring a proper investigation, although the Magistrate cannot investigate personally.

The Court also relied on Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277, M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2011, decided on 20 March 2020, and Shweta Bhadoriya v. State of M.P., (2017) 1 MPLJ (Cri) 338, for the principle that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked for non-registration of an FIR or alleged deficiencies in investigation when an effective Magistrate remedy exists.

The Court further referred to Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 437, for the proposition that registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence, while also recognising the statutory mechanism under Sections 154(3) and 156(3) CrPC, corresponding to Sections 173 and 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

The Court treated the petitioner’s grievances—non-registration of an FIR and alleged police inaction—as matters falling within the statutory supervisory framework of the CrPC.

Although the petitioner had approached the Superintendent of Police and her statement had been recorded, she had not pursued the further and efficacious remedy of approaching the Magistrate under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Applying Sakiri Vasu and the subsequent authorities, the Court held that the Magistrate could direct registration of the FIR, order or supervise a proper investigation, and ensure that relevant investigative steps were taken.

Consequently, the existence of this specific statutory remedy justified the High Court’s refusal to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction at that stage.

The petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Magistrate under the applicable provisions of the CrPC/BNSS for redressal of her grievance.