1. Writ petition seeking registration of FIR regarding an incident at a judge's residence and challenging the requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of India. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1166
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Mathews J. Nedumpara & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Supreme Court Of India & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 706 of 2025
Decided On : 07-08-2025
Advocates appeared:
For Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-personCases Referred:
K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 [Para 3]
Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 [Para 11]
For Petitioner(s):Petitioner-in-personCases Referred:
K. Veeraswami vs. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 655 [Para 3]
Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana, (1988) 4 SCC 534 [Para 11]
Court affirmed that petitioners must approach authorities with representations before filing for judicial intervention, impacting police authority to act on FIR requests.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Writ petition for registering FIR - Petitioners, comprising advocates and a chartered accountant, requested for direction to register FIR regarding burnt currency notes, claiming previous rulings impose undue fetters on police powers - Court held petitioners failed to show a proper representation to authorities seeking FIR - Writ petition dismissed due to abuse of process and misstatements. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 154 - Authority of police to register FIR in cognizable offences - Legal precedent discussed in K. Veeraswami case - Court ruled the precedent imposes an unnecessary constraint on registration of FIR. (Para 4)
(C) Jurisprudential concerns raised regarding principles in K. Veeraswami decision - Petitioners contended it did not align with statutory provisions now enacted, suggesting per incuriam status. (Para 4)
(D) Representations to authorities mandated before seeking higher judicial interventions - Previous petitions filed with similar grievances were previously disposed of without proper recourse to local authorities. (Paras 6-12)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Requirement of consultation with the Chief Justice of India for registering FIRs against judges is per incuriam and contrary to statutory law under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Petitioners failed to produce the representation they claimed to have submitted to the police, constituting an incorrect statement on oath and abuse of the process of law. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 )
4. A writ petition is liable for dismissal when petitioners make incorrect statements on oath and abuse the process of law by claiming representations that were never made. (Para 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 13 )
6. Is a petitioner required to include a copy of the representation made to authorities in a writ petition?
Yes, if a representation has been made to the authorities seeking the relief prayed for in the writ petition, it should form part of the petition. (Para 11 )
7. What is the legal consequence of making an incorrect statement on oath in a writ petition?
Making an incorrect statement on oath and abusing the process of law and the court can lead to the dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 13 )
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 of the In- House Inquiry Committee along with the response of the third respondent to the Hon’ble President of India and the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India. Before the petitioners seek a writ of mandamus, the petitioners will have to seek redressal of their grievance by filing a representation before the appropriate authorities. The petitioners have not done so. Therefore, we decline to entertain this Writ
