https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309520 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. en-us Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 07 Sep 2023 13:08:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309520 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309520