While sympathisizing with the plight of citizens who find their right to have a cognizable offence investigated frustrated by police inaction, the Allahabad High Court has held that the litigants should first exhaust the statutory remedies available under Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 154(3) and Section 156(3) CrPC) before approaching the Court under Article 226, unless exceptional circumstances exist which warrant direct intervention.

The High Court was considering a petition seeking issuance of a direction commanding and directing the Respondent Authorities to adhere to the mandatory directives for registration of the First Information Report pursuant to the complaint of the Petitioner against the accused persons.

The Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena stated, “While this Court is sympathetic to the plight of citizens who find their right to have a cognizable offence investigated frustrated by police inaction, and this Court fully appreciates that the right to a fair investigation is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, sympathy cannot override procedure. The procedure prescribed under the BNSS/CrPC is not a mere technicality. It is a substantive safeguard that ensures that grievances are addressed at the appropriate level, with the Magistrate serving as an independent judicial officer who can direct registration, order investigation, and monitor the same. To allow litigants to bypass this statutory scheme and approach this Court directly would not only undermine the legislative intent but would also encourage a culture of bypassing statutory remedies, which is detrimental to the rule of law. This Court must, therefore, insist that litigants litigants first exhaust the statutory remedies available under Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) BNSS [or Section 154(3) and Section 156(3) CrPC] before approaching this Court under Article 226, unless exceptional circumstances exist which warrant direct intervention.”

Advocate Deepak Kumar Pandey represented the Petitioner while Government Advocate Ashish Kumar Dubey represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The petitioner is a press reporter working for the news channel News18. It was stated that on August 1, 2025, when he went to the Jhusi locality to cover the flood situation and capture footage of the affected areas, while returning home in his car, four unknown persons riding two motorcycles allegedly approached him and opened fire with an intention to kill him. It was further submitted that the petitioner narrowly escaped the multiple rounds of firing as he was sitting inside his car, and the bullets struck the vehicle. Thereafter, on the same day, the petitioner went to the police station and submitted a complaint regarding the aforesaid incident.

In his complaint, the petitioner specifically stated that, being a reporter of a reputed news channel, he had incurred the displeasure of the mafia associated with Atiq Ahmad, as he had aired several reports against him on the news channel. According to the petitioner, the incident was committed at the instance of the said land grabbers, allegedly associated with Atiq Ahmad. Aggrieved by the inaction of the local police, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained, “The power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue writs can be exercised not only for the enforcement of fundamental rights, but for any other purpose as well. The High Court has the discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. One of the restrictions placed on the power of the High Court is where an efficacious alternate remedy is available to the aggrieved person. Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where (a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution; (b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice; (c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or (d) the vires of a legislation is challenged.”

The Bench affirmed that the Supreme Court has time and again emphasised that the Magistrate has very wide powers under Section 156(3) CrPC (Section 175(3) BNSS) to direct registration of an FIR and to ensure a proper investigation, and for this purpose, can even monitor the investigation. “This remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC (Section 175(3) BNSS) is not merely an alternative, instead, it is the primary and preferred remedy that must be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226”, it added.

The Bench was of the view that the growing trend of litigants rushing to the High Court without first availing the statutory remedies has to be curbed as it not only defeats the purpose of the procedure prescribed under the BNSS/CrPC but also creates an immense burden on this Court, which is meant to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in rare and exceptional cases.

Thus, finding no reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Amit Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 10 others (Neutral Citation: 2026:AHC:169762-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Deepak Kumar Pandey, Vinay Kumar Mishra

Respondent: Government Advocate Ashish Kumar Dubey, Advocate Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi

Click here to read/download Order


Tags: