Alternative statutory remedy bars writ intervention where disputed facts require fuller material and investigation should not be stifled.

Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised where an efficacious statutory remedy is available and the dispute turns on contested facts. A challenge to an FIR and notices under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was found unsuitable for writ adjudication because the petitioner could seek relief before the Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457, and the factual controversy required fuller material. The Court held that writ intervention should not be used to stifle a legitimate investigation when an adequate alternative remedy exists, and dismissed the petition as not maintainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the writ petition under Article 226 was maintainable in view of the availability of an efficacious statutory remedy against the impugned notice and the presence of disputed facts.

Analysis: The petition challenged an FIR and notices issued under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The Court held that the petitioner had a statutory remedy before the Magistrate under Sections 451 and 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It further held that disputed factual questions, on the material then available, should not be examined in writ jurisdiction and that such jurisdiction should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate investigation when an adequate alternative remedy exists.

Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable and was dismissed for availability of an efficacious statutory remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an efficacious statutory remedy is available and the matter involves disputed facts requiring fuller material, writ jurisdiction under Article 226 should ordinarily not be exercised.

---