Satyabrata Dey v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors., 2026
Writ Petition for FIR Registration - Alternative Remedy under BNSS
Judgement Details
Court
Gauhati High Court
Date of Decision
3 September 2026
Judges
Justice Manish Choudhury
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The dispute arose from a tender issued by the Lanka Municipal Board, Hojai, Assam, for the supply of sand gravel.
-
The petitioner, Satyabrata Dey, submitted a tender quoting ₹925 per cubic metre, claiming that his was the lowest bid.
-
According to him, the Municipal Board accepted another bidder's quotation of ₹1,250 per cubic metre, despite the petitioner alleging irregularities in the tender process.
-
He also alleged that the successful bidder's Tax Clearance Certificate was submitted after the prescribed deadline.
-
The petitioner had earlier approached the High Court through W.P.(C) No. 1332/2025, seeking investigation into the alleged irregularities. That petition was dismissed, while liberty was granted to pursue an appropriate legal remedy.
-
Thereafter, the petitioner claimed that he sent an FIR by registered post on 18 September 2025 to the Officer-in-Charge of Lanka Police Station, but the FIR was allegedly not registered.
-
Instead of first approaching the authorities and Magistrate through the remedies available under the BNSS, he approached the High Court under Article 226 seeking directions for registration and investigation of the FIR.
Issues
-
Whether the petitioner could directly invoke the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 226 for registration and investigation of an FIR without exhausting the statutory remedies under the BNSS?
-
Whether the petitioner was required to approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS before approaching the Magistrate?
-
Whether the Magistrate's remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS constituted an effective and efficacious alternative remedy?
-
Whether the writ petition was premature because the petitioner had not followed the prescribed sequential statutory mechanism?
Judgement
-
The Gauhati High Court declined to entertain the writ petition, holding that it was premature.
-
The Court relied substantially upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, and the principles concerning exhaustion of alternative statutory remedies.
-
The Court explained that where an FIR is not registered, the aggrieved person should ordinarily follow the statutory sequence rather than directly approach the High Court under Article 226:
-
Police Station → Superintendent of Police → Magistrate
-
Under the BNSS framework, the relevant sequence is:
-
Section 173(1) → Section 173(4) → Section 175(3), BNSS.
-
The Court therefore refused to entertain the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to pursue the remedies available under the BNSS.
Held
-
The Court held that the writ petition was premature and was not fit to be entertained because the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedies available under the BNSS.
-
The petitioner was granted liberty to:
-
Approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS; and thereafter
-
Approach the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS, in accordance with law.
-
Importantly, the Court clarified that its observations did not express any opinion on the merits of the alleged tender irregularities or whether any criminal offence had actually been committed.
Analysis
-
The judgment reinforces the principle that Article 226 is an extraordinary constitutional remedy and ordinarily should not be used when an effective statutory remedy is available.
-
The Court emphasized the statutory sequence under the new criminal-procedure framework: the complainant should first approach the police, then the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, and subsequently the Magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS.
-
The judgment recognizes the Magistrate as an important statutory authority for ensuring that allegations requiring investigation are appropriately dealt with when the police fail to act.
-
The Court followed the principle that the High Court should ordinarily not become the first forum for directing FIR registration when statutory mechanisms remain available.
-
The Court relied on Sakiri Vasu and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe, which emphasize exhaustion of statutory remedies in matters concerning non-registration or improper investigation of FIRs.
-
The decision is particularly significant because it applies the established alternative-remedy principle to the BNSS, 2023, which replaced the CrPC. The corresponding BNSS provisions now provide the statutory route for dealing with refusal to register an FIR.
-
The Court carefully avoided determining whether the alleged tender irregularities constituted a criminal offence. Thus, the decision concerns procedural maintainability, rather than the substantive merits of the allegations.
-
The judgment serves as a reminder that litigants should ordinarily exhaust the statutory criminal-procedure remedies before invoking the High Court's extraordinary writ jurisdiction.