Writ To Compel Police To Conduct Investigation Can Be Denied For Not Exhausting Alternative & Efficacious Remedy Under CrPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has observed that a writ to compel police to conduct an investigation can be denied for not exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Justice Chadra Dhari Singh however added that such writ may be denied unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of Apex Court in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh are satisfied.

The Supreme Court in the said judgment had said that the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right or when there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or in cases where order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or when vires of a legislation is challenged.

With the said observation, the Court dismissed a plea filed under Article 226 & 227 seeking immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.

It was submitted by the petitioner that Rs. 32,00,000 had been deposited in the account of petitioner and that that the Police had caused a substantial delay of sixteen days in lodging the FIR.

It was argued that the FIR was lodged on 8th December 2021 after the order of the High Court and that the police was not investigating the matter as per the mandate of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court.

It was submitted that even after lodging the FIR, the accused were not arrested by the police.

On the other hand, the State and police officials vehemently opposed the plea and submitted that the petition was nothing but a gross misuse of process.

"Thus, a writ to compel the police to conduct an investigation can be denied for not exhausting the alternative and efficacious remedy available under the provisions of the Code, unless the exceptions enumerated in the decision of Apex Court in the aforementioned judgment are satisfied," the Court said.

The Court was of the view that the petitioner was yet to exercise and exhaust the alternative remedies available under the provisions of the CrPC including approaching the Magistrate by taking recourse to Section 156(3) of the Code.

"It is the prerogative of the police/investigation agency to determine whether custodial interrogation is required. Further, the present stage is pre-mature for the writ petition to be entertained since the investigating agency is already investigating in accordance with law. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the investigation at this stage," the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court observed that the power to issue writ has its own well-defined limitations imposed by the High Courts, one of which is the availability of alternative efficacious remedy.

"This Court is also of the opinion that the High Court should not ordinarily, as a matter of routine, exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available. Considering the law laid down by the judicial precedents, the procedure laid down by the Code of Criminal Procedure and as well as the fact that alternate and efficacious remedy is available to the petitioner," the Court said.

Accordingly, the plea was dismissed.

Case Title: LALIT RAJ v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 212

Click Here To Read Order