The Supreme Court has laid down following points in this matter :
1. Once the police report ( charge sheet) is filed upon completion of investigation of the FIR, so long cognizance of offence is not taken by the Magistrate, writ or order to quash the FIR/ charge sheet could be issued under Art 226.
2. However, once the Magistrate takes cognizance Art 226 is not available.
3.In such cases where the Magistrate has taken cognizance power under Sec. 528 BNSS is available to quash not only FIR/ charge sheet but also order taking cognizance. In such case even Art 227 of constitution can be invoked.

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.

120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.

120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:

(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes

(b) Commercial offences

(c) Medical negligence cases

(d) Corruption cases

(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.

The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.

120.7 [Ed.: This correction is based on para 120.7 as corrected vide order in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 695.] . While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time-bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.

120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

121. With the above directions, we dispose of the reference made to us. List all the matters before the appropriate Bench for disposal on merits.

C. ​Constitution of India remedy/Exhaustion of remedies - Nature of rule of - Existence of alternative Art. 226 - Maintainability - Alternative statutory remedies, held, is not a constitutional bar to High Court's jurisdiction but is a self-imposed restriction - Further held, the alternative remedy would not operate as a bar in at least three contingencies:

(i) where the writ petition g seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights;

(ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or

(iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged

Hence, where the show-cause notice issued by the Registrar of Trade Marks under S. 56(4) of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 was challenged by a writ petition on the grounds that the notice was wholly without jurisdiction, held, High Court h erred in dismissing the writ petition at the initial stage without examining that contention - Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, Ss. 56(4) and 2(1)(x) - Notice under S. 56(4) Writ petition against Administrative Law - Natural justice - Notice petition against justified

-Applicability of Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India to the orders passed by courts.

- This matter was placed before a bench of 3 Judges to consider the law laid down in Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai and others that the order of the civil court was amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court of India laid down in this Judgement that petitions which challenge the orders of the Court in any State would come under Art.227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions which challenge orders of other state instrumentalities under Art.12 would come under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India.

Further, a Writ would not lie against private individuals who are not performing a public function.

The Supreme Court thus overruled Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai (2003) 6  SCC 675.

The question before the Supreme Court in this case was of territorial jurisdiction. The question was whether the seat of Parliament or the State legislature would be a relevant factor for determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court held that the situs of the office of Parliament, the legislature of a State or Authorities empowered to make subordinate legislation is not relevant for this purpose. The place where the original order or appellate order, or revisional order is passed may give rise to part of the cause of action to any of the High Courts as per Article 226 (2) of the Constitution of India.

In this case Bombay High Court discussed how a writ petition should not be entertained when an alternative remedy in civil courts is available. The Court held that a writ petition is not a remedy to decide the intra-party disputes and that it is the civil court which is the proper remedy. The court further observed that the tendency to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction is growing for various reasons. The court held that this aspect of not entertaining writs when an alternative remedy is available would be adequately considered by all courts having writ jurisdiction.