Affirming Supreme Court’s Ruling in _Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe_, Gujarat High Court Holds That Writs for FIR Registration Are Disfavoured but Authorities Must Reconsider Applications and Inform Applicants
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SCR.A/11442/2025 of NADIRHUSEN AHEMADBHAI KURESHI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT |
| CNR | GJHC240551132025 |
| Decision Date | 19-08-2025 |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr. Justice Hasmukh D. Suthar |
| Court | High Court of Gujarat |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court can issue a writ directing registration of an FIR, or whether it should instead direct the competent authority to reconsider the application. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (2016) 6 SCC 277, holding that High Courts should not entertain writs that directly command registration of an FIR so as to avoid flooding with such petitions. Instead, when no cognizance has been taken, the proper course is to direct the relevant authority to reconsider the request and communicate its decision. In doing so, the High Court clarifies that it does not opine on the merits of the allegations but ensures procedural compliance, preserving the petitioner’s right to further remedies if aggrieved by the outcome. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Others, (2016) 6 SCC 277 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reliance on the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Tambe that direct writs for FIR registration lead to administrative overload; the Court directed that authorities must still entertain and decide applications on their own merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner submitted applications dated 30-11-2022 and 15-05-2025 seeking registration of an FIR; no action was taken by the police authorities, prompting the Article 226 petition. |
| Citations | (2016) 6 SCC 277 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Respondent police authorities in Gujarat High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Follows | Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe (2016 6 SCC 277) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that High Courts should avoid issuing writs that directly command the registration of FIRs to prevent inundation of such petitions.
- Clarifies that, where no FIR has been registered, Courts may direct the competent authority to reconsider applications and communicate the outcome without delving into merits.
- Confirms the petitioner’s liberty to pursue “appropriate remedy” if dissatisfied with the authority’s revised decision.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the Supreme Court’s observation in Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe that entertaining writs for FIR registration would flood High Courts and impede other judicial functions.
- It held that the correct remedy is to direct the police authority to examine the petitioner’s applications (dated 30-11-2022 and 15-05-2025) and to inform the petitioner of the result.
- The High Court emphasized that it was not expressing any view on the merits of the allegations, preserving the authority’s discretion and the petitioner’s right to challenge any adverse outcome.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted two written applications (30-11-2022, 15-05-2025) requesting FIR registration, but no action was taken.
- Contended that non-registration amounted to denial of statutory right, warranting judicial intervention under Article 226.
Respondent (State Authority)
- No substantive counter-arguments recorded; no cognizance taken prior to Court’s order.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the police on 30-11-2022 and again on 15-05-2025 seeking registration of an FIR. In the absence of any action by the authorities, he filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the High Court direct registration of the FIR.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India: invoked to challenge administrative inaction.
- No other statutory provisions were analyzed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe vs. Hemant Yashwant Dhage & Others, (2016) 6 SCC 277.