TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
WHETHER A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE FOR SEEKING QUASHING OF AN F.I.R.
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....HETHER A WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION IS MAINTAINABLE FOR SEEKING QUASHING OF AN F.I.R.<br>By: - DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN<br>Other Topics<br>Dated:- 10-8-2026<br>FIR F.I.R. stands for First Information Report. It is a written document prepared by the police when they received information about the commission of a cognizable offence, a serious crim for which the police can investigate and make an arrest without prior court approval. The purpose of an FIR is to officially record the alleged crime investigation process. Article 32 Article 32 of the Constitution of India is one of the most important provisions of Indian Constitution. It guarantees the right to approach the Supreme Court directly for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed under Part III of the Constitution. • Article 32(1) guarantees the right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental right; • Article 32(2) empowers the Supreme Court to issue writs for enforcing fundamental rights, if any; • Article 32(3) gives powers to the other Courts to exercise similar powers within their jurisdiction. • Article 32(4) provides that the right under Article 32 canno be suspended except as provided by the Constitution. Issue The issue to be discussed in this article is as to whether a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is maintainable for seeking quashing of an FIR with decided case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... laws. Quashing of FIR Normally an application to quash FIR should ordinarily be filed before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 528 of BNSS. A petition directly under Article 32 is maintainable only in rare and exceptional cases involving the enforcement of fundamental rights. Case laws In Arnab Ranjan Goswami Versus Union of India (UOI) and Ors - 2020 (5) TMI 702 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that although a petition under Article 32 to quash the FIR is maintainable, the petitioner should ordinarily be relegated to the High Court under Section 482 CrPC unless exceptional circumstances exist. It observed as under. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner has an equal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly efficacious remedy available before the High Court. The Supreme Court should not be construed as holding that a petition under Article 32 is not maintainable. But when the High Court has the power under Section 482, there is no reason to by-pass the procedure under the CrPC, the Supreme Court see no exceptional grounds or reasons to entertain this petition under Article 32. In VINOD DUA Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. - 2021 (6) TMI 1203 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court entertained a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution against an order of remand passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate despite the objection that the order must be challenged in accordance with the provisions of the Code. As a matter of self-imposed discip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....line and considering the pressure of mounting cases on the Supreme Court, it has become the practice of the Supreme Court to ordinarily direct that the High Court first be approached even in cases of violation of fundamental rights. However, Article 32 which is itself a fundamental right cannot be rendered nugatory in a glaring case of deprivation of liberty. In UNION OF INDIA Versus PAUL MANICKAM - 2003 (10) TMI 61 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed that many unscrupulous petitioners are approaching the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution challenging the order of detention directly without first approaching the High Courts concerned. It is appropriate that the High Court concerned under whose ju....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....risdiction the order of detention has been passed by the State Government or Union Territory should be approached first. In order to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution to approach the Supreme Court directly, it has to be shown by the petitioner as to why the High Court has not been approached, could not be approached or it is futile to approach the High Court. Unless satisfactory reasons are indicated in this regard, filing of petition in such matters directly under Article 32 of the Constitution is to be discouraged. In RAJENDRA BIHARI LAL AND ANOTHER Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS - 2025 (10) TMI 1453 - Supreme Court, the Supreme Court held that as the highest constitutional court, has been conferred....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the powers as enshrined under Part III of the Constitution to provide remedies against the violation of fundamental rights. The very fact that the right to constitutional remedies has itself been enshrined as a fundamental right is a clear affirmation that the Supreme Court is the ultimate guarantor of their enforcement. Once the Constitution has cast such a responsibility upon it, the Supreme Court need not direct a petitioner to pursue an alternative remedy, when the grievance stems from the alleged violation of a fundamental right. At the same time, although, as a matter of orderly procedure and judicial discipline, an aggrieved party is expected, in the ordinary course, to first approach the High Court, yet where facts discl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ose a palpable violation of the fundamental rights necessitating urgent intervention, it is incumbent upon the Supreme Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, to step in and secure justice. In such circumstances, the existence of an alternative remedy cannot dilute the constitutional mandate entrusted to the Supreme Court. In RUTVIJ BHAGAT SINGH WAKHARE Versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. - 2026 (8) TMI 413 - Supreme Court - the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking to quash and set aside all the FIRs lodged in Maharashtra Pune Cyber Police Station Pune City with FIR No.0499 of 2024 Bengaluru with Crime No. 412 of 2024, and Crime No.275/2024 and in Odisha with Crime No. 32 of 2024, und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er section 120B,170, 389, 417, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 506 read with 35, 36, 37 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 43, 66(c) and 66(d) of Information Technology Act. The allegations, as emerging from these FIRs, pertain to incidents of cyber fraud, in which the complainants were contacted by unknown persons posing as police officials and were falsely informed that several money laundering activities had been carried out in their names. On this the complainants were induced to transfer large sums of money to various bank accounts for verification and investigation. It is alleged that a part of the money, so transferred, was credited to Account No.50200085120507 maintained in the name of 'Al Zeba Marinen Overseas', a proprietary ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....concern of the petitioner. Though the petitioner is not named as an accused in the subject FIRs, the aforesaid bank account belonging to his proprietary concern finds a mention therein. The petitioner had permitted his friend, Mr. Ganesh Khaire, to use the aforesaid bank account on a commission basis to run an online gaming business. The said bank account was, thereafter, operated by Mr. Ganesh Khaire, and one Mr. Krishnakant Sharma. The petitioner lodged a Cyber Crime Complaint against the said persons alleging that they had fraudulently used the bank account of his proprietary concern for unlawful money transfers. The Supreme Court observed that it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights. The Supreme Court further observed that the jurisdiction conferred under Article 32 is undoubtedly wide. At the same time, it is an extraordinary remedy which must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when it is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the infringement of fundamental rights. as a matter of judicial principle and orderly procedure, an aggrieved party is expected, in the ordinary course, to firstly approach the High Court. It is only where the facts disclose a violation of fundamental right(s) or other compelling circumstances that t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Supreme Court would directly exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32. The Supreme Court observed that in the present case, the petitioner has only contended the following- • he was serving abroad on a merchant ship; • he had no knowledge of the alleged transactions; • the alleged bank account was operated and misused by Mr. Ganesh Khaire and Mr. Krishnakant Sharma. The petitioner has failed to establish infringement of any fundamental right warranting the exercise of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 32. The petitioner not been able to show the existence of any exceptional or exigent circumstances so as to justify bypassing the procedure available under CrPC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... The petitioner directed the petitioner to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing the impugned FIRs and dismissed the writ petition. =============<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....