Court Upholds Single Bench's Decision, Emphasizes Alternate Legal Remedies over Writ Petitions
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court dismissed an appeal filed by Sanjana Gupta, who sought a writ of mandamus to compel police authorities to register a First Information Report (FIR) for a cognizable offense. The division bench, comprising Acting Chief Justice Sujoy Paul and Justice Partha Sarathi Sen, upheld the decision of a Single Bench, emphasizing that writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be used for such purposes when alternate legal remedies are available.
The case arose from a complaint lodged by Gupta, who alleged that the police failed to register an FIR based on her complaint dated January 28, 2025, concerning an incident on January 25, 2025. Dissatisfied with the police's inaction, Gupta approached the High Court, seeking a directive for the registration of an FIR. The Single Bench, however, directed her to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which provides a mechanism for the Magistrate to assess the nature of the alleged offense and decide whether an investigation is warranted.
Gupta's appeal contended that the Single Bench failed to consider that her complaint disclosed a cognizable offense, thereby justifying direct police investigation. Her counsel argued that the police's failure to register the FIR amounted to a miscarriage of justice. However, the division bench, citing precedents from the Supreme Court, including "Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP" and "Lalita Kumari v. Government of UP," reiterated that writ petitions for FIR registration are not maintainable when statutory remedies exist. The court noted that the High Courts are unnecessarily burdened with such petitions, which should be directed to the appropriate Magistrate.
The court also took into account the ongoing matrimonial discord between Gupta and the private respondents, which had resulted in multiple FIRs in the past. It concurred with the Single Bench that the Magistrate is the appropriate authority to determine the necessity of an investigation, as outlined in Section 175 of BNSS, 2023.
The ruling highlights the judiciary's stance on prioritizing statutory remedies and reducing the burden on High Courts by discouraging the practice of seeking writs for FIR registration. This decision reinforces the legal framework that mandates individuals to pursue alternative legal channels before approaching the High Court.
The appeal was subsequently dismissed, with the court affirming the Single Bench's directives to Gupta to seek redress through the jurisdictional Magistrate, thereby ensuring adherence to legal processes.
Bottom Line:
Filing of writ petition for mandamus to direct police authorities to register an FIR is not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when alternate remedies under law are available, such as approaching the jurisdictional Magistrate.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 175(1)
Sanjana Gupta v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2838663
