Sujal Vishwas Attavar & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. 2026 INSC 442
Bench – Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih, JJ.
Delivered on May 04, 2026
Facts:
The dispute centers on property (Gut No. 82) in Trimbakeshwar, Nashik, which was purchased by the complainant company, E & G Global Estates Ltd., in 2010 and developed into the “E&G Green Valley” leisure resort.
The property has a complex history involving lease agreements and a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) initiated in June 2020, during which a statutory moratorium was in effect.
The complainant alleged that during this moratorium, a fraudulent sub-lease was executed in favor of the appellant (Mrs. Sheetal Vishwas Attavar). Between December 2024 and April 2025, it is further alleged that the appellants used forged documents and signatures to apply for property measurement and that an impersonator posed as the company’s director to mislead revenue officials.
Upon discovering these acts, the complainant filed complaints with the Land Record Authority and sent copies to the police. The Land Record Authority declined to take coercive action and advised the complainant to seek redressal from a competent authority. Similarly, the police returned the matter to the Land Records department for further inquiry.
Aggrieved, the complainant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On December 17, 2025, the High Court directed the director to record her statement and ordered the police to initiate “necessary action as per provisions of law”. Pursuant to this, FIR No. 0194/2025 was registered against the appellants.
Issue: Whether a direction could be given under Article 226 of the Constitution to state authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first exhausting the alternative statutory remedies provided in law.
Reasoning by Court:
Extraordinary vs. Ordinary Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court reiterated that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is extraordinary and discretionary. It should not be used as an alternative for relief that can be obtained through a mode prescribed by statute.
Statutory Sequence for Prosecution: The Court highlighted that the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 (BNSS) provides a structured sequential mechanism for reporting crimes: Information to the officer-in-charge (Section 173(1)); If registration is refused, recourse to the Superintendent of Police (Section 173(4)); and Finally, recourse to a Magistrate (Section 175(3)).
Bypassing the Scheme: The complainant did not approach the Superintendent of Police or a Magistrate before filing the writ petition. The Court held that allowing a writ petition in such circumstances effectively turns the High Court into a forum of first instance, bypassing the entire statutory scheme.
Lack of Special Circumstances: While Article 226 is not an absolute bar, exceptions (such as imminent danger to life or liberty) were not present in this case. The Court noted that High Courts should discourage this practice to avoid being “flooded” with petitions for FIR registration, which would hinder their other work.
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court’s interim order dated December 17, 2025. FIR No. 0194/2025, which was a direct consequence of the High Court’s direction, was quashed. The Court granted liberty to the parties to pursue alternative statutory remedies as available under the law. The Court clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the actual merits of the criminal allegations.