Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered appeals against an interim order of the Bombay High Court directing police to record the statement of the Director of the complainant company and initiate necessary action, which led to the registration of FIR No.0194/2025 against the appellants under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The dispute involved a property in Nashik purchased by the complainant company in 2010 and developed into a resort. A lease deed was executed in 2012, and a registered lease deed in 2014 was allegedly fraudulently executed. The complainant company became a non-performing asset, and a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process was initiated with a moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. During the moratorium, a sub-lease deed was executed in favor of respondent no.7, leading to civil suits challenging its validity. Criminal allegations arose from events between December 2024 and April 2025, involving an alleged forged application for property measurement and impersonation. The complainant filed complaints with the Land Records Authority, which declined to take coercive action and advised seeking redressal from competent authority. The police also returned the matter for further inquiry. The complainant then filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking direction to register an FIR. The High Court passed the impugned interim order without issuing notice to the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in directing registration of FIR without the complainant exhausting alternative remedies available under law, as the writ jurisdiction is discretionary and subject to the rule of alternative remedy. The Court set aside the impugned order and the consequent FIR, allowing the appeals.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Registration of FIR - Alternative Remedy - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The High Court directed police to record statement and initiate action, leading to registration of FIR without complainant exhausting alternative remedies under law - Held that writ jurisdiction should not be exercised when efficacious alternative remedy exists, and direction to register FIR without prior recourse to statutory remedies is illegal (Paras 3, 5). B) Criminal Law - Fraud and Forgery - Civil Disputes - Sections 318, 319, 335, 336, 337, 338, 340, 61 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 - Allegations of forged measurement application and impersonation in property dispute - Multiple civil suits pending between parties - Held that criminal proceedings arising from civil disputes should not be encouraged when alternative remedies are available (Paras 3.5, 3.6, 4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a direction could be given to State Authorities to register an FIR without the applicant first having taken recourse to the alternative remedies provided in law.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned interim order dated 17.12.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.5154 of 2025 and the consequent FIR No.0194/2025 registered against the appellants.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226
- alternative remedy rule
- registration of FIR
- fraud allegations
- civil disputes
- criminal proceedings
