Judgment Intelligence
Petition Allowed
Kamal Sabharwal v. The State of Assam & Ors.
Criminal Appeal No. 4859 of 2026 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5817 of 2026) with Criminal Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8392 of 2026
- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Date of Decision
- 6 October 2026
- Bench
- Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 173(4)
Final Outcome
Appeals allowed: the High Court's order directing registration of an FIR against the appellant was set aside, with liberty to the respondents to take recourse to law (paras 5-7).
Judgment digest by NyayVidhan: a summary of the court's judgment, not its text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.
Brief Facts
Respondent No. 2 applied under Section 173(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for a direction to register an FIR against the appellant, and the Trial Court dismissed the application (para 3). The Gauhati High Court reversed that order on 17.03.2026 in CRLP No. 761/2025 and directed that an FIR be registered (para 3). The question was whether the High Court was right to do so on the sole premise that, because an FIR registered at the appellant's instance had led to multiple chargesheets, the later complaint by respondent No. 2 against the appellant also had to be registered and proceeded with (para 4). A connected appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 8392/2026 was heard with it.
Court's Findings
The Court found that the High Court had neither found fault with the reasoning given by the Trial Court nor given any cogent reasoning of its own for allowing the criminal petition (para 5). Notwithstanding the arguments made on the merits, the High Court's order could not be sustained on that score alone, and the Court set it aside without going into the submissions of the parties (para 5). On a further issue raised for the respondents, about the first complaint and the relationship of the person on whose behalf it was given to the accused in the complaint lodged by the appellant(s), the Court declined to say anything beyond giving the respondents liberty to take recourse to law (para 6). With these observations, both appeals were allowed (para 7).
Legal Principle
A High Court order reversing a trial court's refusal to direct registration of an FIR under Section 173(4) BNSS, without finding fault with the trial court's reasoning or giving cogent reasons of its own, cannot be sustained on that ground alone (paras 4-5).