When a statute provides for a hierarchy of appeals, a party must exhaust all statutory remedies before seeking relief through written jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court





Indian Penal Code

Section 384 Punishment for murder
Section 420 Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention
Section 195 Prosecution for contempt of lawful authority of public servants, for offences against public justice and for offences relating to documents given in evidence.
Section 506 Punishment for criminal intimidation
Section 120-B Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.
Section 211 False charge of offence made with intent to injure.



Section 156(3) Magistrate empowered under section 190 may order such an investigation as above- mentioned.
Section 482 Saving of inherent powers of High Court. Nothing in this Code shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.
Section 438 Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.


Constitution of India

Article 226 Power of High Courts to issue certain writs



Monday, the Allahabad High Court stated that a party must exhaust the statutory remedies before using writ jurisdiction for relief in cases where the statute provides a hierarchy of appeals.

The petition to quash the FIR filed under Sections 384, 420, 195, 506, 120-B, and 211 of the Indian Penal Code was the topic of discussion on the bench of Justices Gajendra Kumar and Anjani Kumar Mishra.

In this instance, Petitioner No. 1 (Nafisa) is leading a Gang that goes by the name “Nafisa Gang.” She has five other people on her team. In addition, it has been alleged that the gang is responsible for submitting a number of ambiguous applications under Section 156(3) Cr. P.C./complaint cases, as well as false alarm reports (FIRs) regarding gang rape and various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the SC/ST Act, were filed against a number of innocent people, and by lodging them, they were able to seize money.

The bench was to consider the following issue:

Whether the petition filed by the petitioner to quash FIR could be accepted or not?

The bench noted that the petitioners have the option of submitting an anticipatory bail application in accordance with Section 438 of the Cr to the relevant courts. P.C. and thereafter pursuant to Section 482 of the Cr. P.C., where the High Court has the inherent authority to quash an FIR. However, in this case, the petitioners have filed a petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, claiming that they are being harassed unnecessarily and that the FIR should be quashed as well as the arrest of the petitioners should stay.


The High Court cited Nivedita Sharma v. Cellular Operators Association of India, in which it was determined that “where the hierarchy of appeals was provided by the statute, a party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief, but in spite of having alternative remedy the writ petition has been preferred seeking multiple reliefs, therefore, the petition was not entertained being devoid of merits is not maintainable and is dismissed.”

The bench stated that they had not exhausted the option of applying for anticipatory bail in accordance with Section 438 of the Cr. P.C. or by submitting a petition in accordance with Section 482 of the Cr to the Court. He has taken recourse to file a writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution in order to quake an FIR or criminal proceedings.

After reviewing the FIR, the High Court concluded that there is a “prima facie case” against the petitioners, necessitating an in-depth investigation by the Authorities. This Court declines to consider the writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution because, given the circumstances, the case does not fall into the category of the rarest of the rare. As a result, the relief seeking quashing of the FIR and interim relief not to arrest the petitioners violates the statutory provisions of criminal jurisprudence.

In view of the above, the bench dismissed the petition.


 “PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to View the Judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *