Delhi High Court Criticizes Lawyer For Filing Criminal Writ Without Examining Legal Position On FIR Registration

The Delhi High Court has criticized a lawyer for filing a criminal writ petition seeking registration of an FIR without examining the settled legal position governing such reliefs.

Justice Girish Kathpalia made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by one Ashanand Saini seeking directions for registration of an FIR, transfer of investigation to an independent agency under the supervision of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Vigilance), and initiation of departmental inquiry against certain police officials.

At the outset, the Court questioned the maintainability of the petition and called upon the petitioner's counsel to explain under what legal basis such prayers could be entertained in a criminal writ petition.

The Court noted that despite repeated queries, the counsel merely raised a general grievance that the police had failed to register an FIR and questioned where citizens should go in such circumstances.

Expressing displeasure, Justice Kathpalia observed,

“It is quite unfortunate that learned counsel has opted not to examine the legal position before filing this writ petition.”

The Court brought to the counsel's notice the Supreme Court judgment in Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2026), relating to the legal remedies available in cases involving non-registration of FIRs.

The High Court also rejected the petitioner's plea seeking transfer of investigation, observing that the counsel appeared to be under the mistaken impression that lodging of a complaint automatically triggers investigation even in the absence of registration of an FIR.

As regards the prayer seeking departmental inquiry against police officials, the Court held that such relief also fell outside the scope of a criminal writ petition.

The Court further remarked that the petition was “not just devoid of merit” but also appeared to be a “mischievous attempt” to respond to an FIR already registered against the petitioner.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petition with ₹10,000 costs.

Appearance: Mr. Bharat Bagga, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.Arjit Sharma and Ms. Sakshi Jha, Advocates for the State with Inspector Rajeev Ranjan and SI Mohit, PS Begumpur for Respondents

Case title: Ashanand Saini@Anand Saini v. State

Case no.: W.P.(CRL) 1596/2026

Click here to read order