← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India4 May 20262026 INSC 442

Attavar v. State of Maharashtra

Bench of 2 · Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Augustine George Masih

Why it matters

Listen

Advocates defending accused persons where an FIR has been registered pursuant to a High Court writ direction — without the complainant first exhausting BNSS remedies before the SP or Magistrate — can cite this judgment to quash both the writ order and the FIR; conversely, complainants must ensure they traverse the full statutory ladder under Sections 173(4) and 175(3) BNSS before approaching the High Court under Article 226.

Summary

The appellants — accused persons in a property and commercial dispute — challenged an interim order of the Bombay High Court dated 17.12.2025 in Writ Petition No. 5154 of 2025, which directed the police to record the statement of the Director of E & G Global Estates Ltd. (the Complainant Company) and take action "as per provisions of law." Pursuant to that direction, FIR No. 0194/2025 was registered against the appellants under multiple sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, including Sections 318(2), 318(4), 319, 335, 336(2), 336(3), 337, 338, 340(2), and 61(2). The underlying allegations concerned forgery, impersonation, and fraud in a measurement application for a property at Gut No. 82, Mouje Talwade, Trimbakeshwar, District Nashik — a dispute intertwined with pending civil suits and a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process under the IBC.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the impugned interim order and quashing FIR No. 0194/2025. The Court held that the Complainant Company had not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies available under the BNSS — specifically, approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS — before directly invoking the High Court's writ jurisdiction. No material was placed on record to show those remedies were unavailable or inefficacious, and no imminent danger to life or liberty was alleged. The writ petition was therefore premature and the High Court ought not to have entertained it.

The Court reaffirmed the principles in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of H.P. [(2021) 6 SCC 771] and Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. [(2008) 2 SCC 409], holding that entertaining such a writ petition would make the High Court a forum of first instance, bypassing the statutory scheme in its entirety — impermissible save in special circumstances conspicuously absent here. Liberty was reserved for parties to pursue alternative statutory remedies, and the Court expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits or on whether the facts disclosed any criminal offence.

Key principle

A complainant who has not exhausted the sequential statutory remedies under the BNSS — approaching the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) and thereafter the Magistrate under Section 175(3) — cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to seek directions for registration of an FIR, unless urgency of circumstances or imminent danger to life or liberty warrants otherwise.

Holding

Allowed — the High Court's interim order directing police action and the consequent FIR are quashed because the Complainant Company bypassed the efficacious sequential statutory remedies under the BNSS and prematurely invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Statutes invoked

  • Constitution of India · Article 226
  • BNSS · 173(1)
  • BNSS · 173(4)
  • BNSS · 175(3)
  • BNS 2023 · 318(2)
  • BNS 2023 · 319
  • IBC · 14

Practice areas

criminalconstitutionalwrit
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.