The Gauhati High Court has declined to entertain a writ petition seeking registration and investigation of an FIR, holding that the petitioner should first exhaust the remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).
Justice Manish Choudhury delivered the judgment on August 19, 2026, observing that directly approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, without first approaching the competent authorities under the BNSS, made the petition premature.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Satyabrata Dey, had earlier raised allegations concerning irregularities in a tender process conducted by the Lanka Municipal Board in Hojai district for the supply of sand gravels.
According to the petitioner, he had quoted ₹925 per cubic metre, which he claimed was the lowest rate. However, the tender was allegedly awarded to another supplier at ₹1,250 per cubic metre. He also raised an issue regarding the timing of submission of a Tax Clearance Certificate.
The petitioner had previously approached the High Court seeking a criminal investigation. That petition was dismissed in September 2025, although liberty was granted to take appropriate legal steps.
He subsequently claimed that he sent an FIR to the Officer-in-Charge of Lanka Police Station on September 18, 2025, but it was not registered. He then approached the Superintendent of Police through an RTI application but said that no information was provided.
Court’s Observation
Justice Choudhury referred to Supreme Court decisions, including Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, which explain that a person complaining of non-registration of an FIR ordinarily has statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.
The Court noted that the BNSS has replaced the earlier Code of Criminal Procedure and provides a similar sequential mechanism. Under Section 173(4), a person aggrieved by refusal to record information may approach the Superintendent of Police. If that does not resolve the grievance, Section 175(3) permits an application to the Magistrate.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Sujal Viswas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, which stressed that writ jurisdiction should ordinarily not be invoked when an equally effective statutory remedy is available.
Decision
The High Court found that the petitioner had not approached the jurisdictional Magistrate before filing the present writ petition. It therefore held that the petition was premature and declined to entertain it.
The Court, however, granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy available under the BNSS by first approaching the Superintendent of Police and thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate under Sections 173(4) and 175(3), following the prescribed procedure.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were not an opinion on the merits of the allegations or on whether the facts disclosed the commission of any criminal offence.
Case Details:
Case Title: Satyabrata Dey v. The State of Assam and 2 Ors.
Case Number: W.P.(C)/4405/2026
Judge: Justice Manish Choudhury
Decision Date: August 19, 2026
