High Court Upholds the Rule of Alternative Remedies, Directs Petitioners to Approach Magistrate First
In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by Ramesh Upadhyay, seeking a directive for the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against a respondent for alleged objectionable statements. The court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The bench, comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena, ruled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary and should not be exercised where an effective alternative remedy is available. The petitioner, a practicing advocate, claimed that statements made by the respondent, Jagadguru Rambhadracharya, caused mental agony and insulted a particular community. Despite submitting a complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi, no FIR was registered, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court.
However, the court noted that the petitioner did not provide proof of receipt of the complaint by the police and failed to pursue statutory remedies under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). This section mandates addressing grievances through the concerned Magistrate, who possesses the authority to direct FIR registration and monitor investigations. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the bench reiterated that the High Court should not be the first point of contact for such grievances.
The court acknowledged exceptions to the rule of alternative remedies, such as violations of fundamental rights or natural justice, but found no such circumstances in this case. The judges underscored the importance of adhering to the legislative framework, which ensures grievances are addressed appropriately before escalating to the High Court.
In dismissing the petition, the court granted the petitioner the liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies as advised. This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial intervention should be sought only after exhausting prescribed statutory channels.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction for registration of FIR is not maintainable if the petitioner has not exhausted statutory remedies available under Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 173(4) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
Ramesh Upadhyay v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id 2972558
