The Punjab & Haryana High Court reaffirms that writ jurisdiction is not to be invoked when alternative efficacious statutory remedies—such as under Section 156(3) CrPC—are available for seeking registration of FIR and redressal of related grievances; upholding established Supreme Court precedents and reinforcing the doctrine of alternate remedy, with dispositive value for financial, banking, and property-related criminal complaints.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/25578/2025 of M/S GURUKUL EDUCATIONAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011380912025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | THE CHIEF JUSTICE, MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab & Haryana |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sheel Nagu (Chief Justice) & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Moudgil |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure / Banking & Finance / SARFAESI Act & Alternative Remedies |
| Questions of Law | Whether writ jurisdiction is maintainable to direct registration of FIR regarding allegedly cognizable offences when alternative statutory remedy exists under CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that writ petitions seeking a writ of mandamus to direct police to register an FIR are not maintainable when efficacious alternative remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 156(3) r/w Sections 190, 200) are available. Complaint regarding non-registration of FIR must be pursued before the Magistrate. The SARFAESI Act proceedings and subsequent grievances about criminal activity related to secured assets do not justify bypassing statutory forums. Rulings of the Supreme Court (Sakiri Vasu and Anurag Bhatnagar) require enforcement of the doctrine of alternate remedy, barring direct High Court intervention absent exceptional circumstances. |
| Judgments Relied Upon | Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409; Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online SC 1514 |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The doctrine of alternative remedy; enforcement of statutory scheme under CrPC; limits of High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in criminal matters, especially where alternative remedies exist. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Petitioner, after default in a bank loan and actions under the SARFAESI Act (symbolic possession in 2014), alleged thefts and trespass in 2024 concerning the secured assets. Police complaints were made, but the grievance was brought before the High Court after nearly 10 years from SARFAESI proceedings. |
| Citations | Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 (Paras 25-28); Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online SC 1514 (Paras 28-34) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab & Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (until overruled/addressed by higher authority) |
| Follows | Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409; Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online SC 1514 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ petitions seeking mandamus for FIR registration are not maintainable where Section 156(3) CrPC remedies exist.
- Directs parties to approach the Magistrate first, rather than High Court, for grievances regarding non-registration of FIR.
- Expressly applies Supreme Court precedents, further clarifying the doctrine of alternative remedy in the SARFAESI context.
- Provides clear guidance for cases where delayed or stale grievances arise regarding criminal acts over secured assets.
- Enforces discipline against forum shopping in criminal-banking intersection matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the maintainability of the writ petition in light of the petitioner’s failure to utilize statutory remedies under the CrPC.
- Noted Supreme Court authority (Sakiri Vasu, Anurag Bhatnagar) on the bar against issuing mandamus for FIR registration when CrPC provides an alternate statutory route.
- Emphasized that the remedy under Section 156(3) CrPC is specifically provided for complaints about non-registration of FIR and must be availed before seeking writ jurisdiction.
- Cited statutory changes referencing corresponding provisions in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Concluded that there was no merit for High Court interference as the petitioner has adequate, alternative recourse to the Magistrate, hence disposed of the petition with liberty to avail such remedy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Alleged thefts and trespass regarding secured assets post-SARFAESI proceedings.
- Complaints made to police were not acted upon; sought writ mandamus for FIR registration.
Respondent (State)
(As recorded in the judgment) – No specific arguments transcribed; State represented by Addl. Advocate General and Senior Deputy Advocate General.
Factual Background
The petitioner, after having loan defaults leading to SARFAESI proceedings and symbolic possession of secured assets by the respondent-bank in 2014, reported incidents of theft and trespass regarding these assets in November 2024. Complaints were filed with the police, but not acted upon, prompting the petitioner to approach the High Court nearly a decade after the initial SARFAESI action.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referred to Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (and its corresponding new sections in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), empowering the Magistrate to order registration and investigation of a cognizable offence.
- The decision affirms that alternative remedies under the CrPC must be prioritized over writ petitions.
- The statutory interpretation followed Supreme Court pronouncements that restrict writ jurisdiction absent exceptional circumstances.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
- Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 2 SCC 409 (Paras 25-28)
- Anurag Bhatnagar v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC Online SC 1514 (Paras 28-34)