Writ Petition Seeking Forced FIR Registration Dismissed by Delhi HC as 'Mischievous Attempt' - 2026-05-18

Delhi High Court Rejects Frivolous Plea for Forced FIR Registration

In a stern ruling delivered on May 18, 2026, the High Court of Delhi dismissed a petition that sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the police to register an FIR and transfer an ongoing investigation. Justice Girish Kathpalia, presiding over the matter, did not mince words, labeling the legal action a "mischievous attempt" to evade an existing criminal case against the petitioner.

The Background of the Dispute

The petitioner, Ashanand Saini, approached the High Court with a list of demands, including the registration of an FIR against several respondents (identified as respondents no. 4 to 6) and the transfer of investigations related to his previous complaints filed between March 2025 and March 2026. Furthermore, he sought departmental action against certain officials, alleging dereliction of duty and corruption.

However, the proceedings revealed that the petitioner’s legal strategy was ill-conceived. Despite being given multiple opportunities to address the maintainability of his petition, counsel for the petitioner failed to offer any cogent legal justification, instead questioning the court on the alternative avenues available when police refuse to register an FIR.

Judicial Scrutiny and Legal Misconception

The court noted that the petitioner’s legal team appeared fundamentally confused regarding the scope of a writ petition in criminal matters. Justice Kathpalia pointed out that the counsel did not seem to grasp that the mere filing of a complaint does not equate to the commencement of a formal investigation, nor is a writ petition the appropriate forum to initiate departmental inquiries against public officials.

The court referenced the Supreme Court judgment Sujal Vishwas Attavar vs The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ( 2026 INSC 442 ) to emphasize the limitations of such petitions, highlighting that the petitioner failed to exhaust appropriate legal remedies under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Key Observations

The judgment reflects the court's frustration with the misuse of judicial process. Justice Kathpalia’s observations are telling:

• "It is quite unfortunate that learned counsel has opted not to examine the legal position before filing this writ petition."
• "The present petition is not just devoid of merit but also appears to be a mischievous attempt to respond to FIR No. 710/2025 registered... against the petitioner."
• "As regards prayer clause (b) also, the learned counsel for petitioner is under the impression that the moment a complaint is lodged, investigation commences irrespective of non-registration of FIR."

A Costly Lesson

Finding the petition devoid of merit and an obstructionist tactic, the High Court dismissed the petition along with all pending applications. To deter similar frivolous litigation, the court imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000 on the petitioner, mandating that the amount be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee (DHCLSC) within one week.

This ruling serves as a stark reminder that the High Court’s extraordinary writ jurisdiction is not a tool to be used for diverting attention from legitimate criminal investigations or for bypassing standard criminal procedure.