Court affirmed that petitioners must approach authorities with representations before filing for judicial intervention, impacting police authority to act on FIR requests.

JUDGMENT :

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

1. This writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of 4 (four) petitioners. The first three are advocates while the fourth is a chartered accountant.

2. The petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction to the respondents/Delhi Police to register a First Information Report¹[FIR] and cause an effective and meaningful investigation into the incident of fire and recovery of burnt currency notes from the residence of a Judge of the Delhi High Court; in the alternative, to direct the Police/Union Government to seek permission of the Chief Justice of India for registration of an FIR. Couple of other reliefs have also been claimed in the writ petition on similar lines.

3. The primary contention urged by the first petitioner, who appeared in person for himself and on behalf of the other petitioners, is that the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court in K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India , (1991) 3 SCC 655 is contrary to law and hence is not required to be followed by the Police. It has, inter alia, been held in such decision as under:

“60. … We, therefore, direct that no criminal case shall be registered under Section 154 , Cr. PC against a Judge of the High Court, Chief Justice of High Court or Judge of the Supreme Court unless the Chief Justice of India is consulted in the matter. …”

4. The first petitioner has contended that the above observation in K. Veeraswami (supra) places an unnecessary fetter on the exercise of power by the Police to register an FIR, once it has information of a cognisable offence having been committed, in terms of the applicable law (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023); and, since the aforesaid observation in K. Veeraswami (supra) is contrary to the law of the land enacted by the Parliament, the same is per incuriam and may be declared as such.

5. This appears to be the third occasion for the petitioners to approach the writ court, more or less voicing similar grievance.

6. The first writ petition³[W.P. (Civil) Diary No.15529 of 2025] was disposed of on 28th March, 2025 with the following order:

“Heard the first petitioner appearing in person.

As far as the grievance regarding the third respondent is concerned, as can be seen from the website of this Court, an in-house procedure has been adopted as directed by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. The inquiry pursuant to the in- house procedure is in progress. After the report is submitted by the Committee, there will be several options open for Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

Therefore, at this stage, it will not be appropriate to entertain this Writ Petition. There are wider prayers for reading down some of the decisions of this Court.

At this stage, according to us, it is not necessary to go into that aspect.

Subject to what is observed above, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.”

7. The second writ petition⁴[W.P. (Civil) No. 534 of 2025] seeking registration of an FIR was disposed of on 21st May, 2025 with the following observation:

“Application seeking permission to appear and argue in person is allowed.

Heard Shri Mathews J. Nedumpara, the first petitioner appearing in person.

Essentially the grievance in the Writ Petition is that no action has been initiated against the third respondent on the basis of the allegations made against him and on the basis of the report of the In-House Inquiry Committee. The Press Release issued by this Court on 8th May, 2025 records that the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India has forwarded the report