High Court directs petitioner to utilize statutory mechanisms under BNSS, 2023 for FIR registration and investigation, underscoring judicial restraint in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In a significant judgment dated July 23, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, addressed the issue of non-registration of a First Information Report (FIR) by the police despite a formal complaint. The petitioner, Mr. Yarragorla Itukanalu, had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR and conduct a fair investigation into allegations involving fraudulent registration and misconduct by officials of the Sub-Registrar Office, Anantapuram Rural.
The Court, after hearing submissions and perusing relevant statutory provisions, declined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. It underscored the importance of following the structured statutory framework laid down in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) before invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction. The High Court emphasized that when efficacious alternative remedies are available under the BNSS, particularly Sections 173, 175(3), 210, and 223, the petitioner must first exhaust these remedies by approaching the jurisdictional Superintendent of Police and subsequently the Magistrate.
The judgment elaborated on the procedural safeguards embedded in BNSS, 2023, which empower police officers to register FIRs upon receiving information disclosing cognizable offences and conduct investigations independently. In cases where the police refuse to register an FIR, Section 173(4) BNSS allows the complainant to send the information to the Superintendent of Police, who is mandated to investigate if prima facie a cognizable offence is disclosed. Further recourse lies with the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS for redressal.
The Court referenced authoritative Supreme Court precedents, including Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P. (2008), Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage (2016), M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki (2020), and the recent ruling in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra (2026), which collectively reinforce that High Courts should not be the first forum for complaints regarding non-registration of FIRs or investigation lapses. Instead, statutory remedies must be availed first to prevent overburdening the courts and to respect the legislative scheme.
Justice Kuncheam noted that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and ordinarily not exercised as an alternative remedy when an efficacious statutory mechanism exists. The judgment clarified that the Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or the validity of the petitioner's complaint or whether the alleged offences are made out. The petitioner was granted liberty to file appropriate complaints before the Magistrate as per the BNSS provisions.
This ruling reaffirms the judiciary's commitment to uphold procedural due process and encourages litigants to follow legislated channels for criminal grievance redressal, thus maintaining judicial discipline and respecting the separation of powers.
Bottom Line:
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking relief for non-registration of an FIR by the police is not maintainable when alternative statutory remedies under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, are available.
Statutory provision(s):
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Sections 173, 175(3), 210, 223; Constitution of India Article 226
Yarragorla Itukanalu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (Andhra Pradesh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2954971
