What Is Prohibited by Law Cannot Be Done Through Backdoor Entry: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹20,000 Cost for Frivolous Petition Against Interlocutory Order

“No Substantive Order Passed, Only IO Summoned for Report; This Court Will Not Interfere”: In a significant ruling Delhi High Court through Justice Girish Kathpalia sternly dismissed a petition filed by a foreign national, Ability Dodzi alias Chinazom Ability, who sought interference against a purely interlocutory order passed by the Trial Court. In a scathing observation, the Court declared: “What is prohibited by law cannot be done by invoking inherent powers, as that would be allowing backdoor entry to the relief claimed.”

The case arose from proceedings under Sections 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, registered vide FIR No. 238/2024 by Police Station Sunlight Colony, New Delhi. The petitioner challenged the Trial Court’s direction dated 11.07.2025, which had merely summoned the Investigating Officer (IO) with a report before deciding his pending application for preservation of CCTV footage under Section 94 of the BNSS (Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita).

The petitioner’s counsel pressed for two reliefs: setting aside the Trial Court’s order summoning the IO and a direction to secure CCTV footage from Police Station Maidan Garhi and the Office of FRRO for the period between June 22 and June 26, 2025. However, the Court recorded an important procedural objection — neither FRRO nor Police Station Maidan Garhi had been impleaded as parties. Furthermore, Sunlight Colony Police Station had no control over the requested CCTV footage.

On examining the impugned order, the High Court noted that it contained no adjudication of the petitioner’s rights but only a procedural directive to ensure the IO’s presence:

“The only direction in the impugned order is as regards summoning the Investigating Officer afresh to appear in person with the report. No substantive order has been passed by the Trial Court.”

Justice Kathpalia found that the petitioner did not dispute the interlocutory nature of the order. He underscored that under Section 438(2) BNSS, revisional jurisdiction against interlocutory orders is explicitly barred.

“What is prohibited by law cannot be done by invoking inherent powers, as that would be allowing backdoor entry to the relief claimed. It is also not a situation of gross injustice,” the Court ruled.

On the Pending Application for CCTV Footage

The Court also rejected the prayer for immediate directions regarding CCTV footage preservation since that very issue was actively pending before the Trial Court. Justice Kathpalia categorically stated:

“The application for preservation of CCTV footage being already pending before the Trial Court, there is no occasion for this court to interfere and pass any order on this issue.”

Highlighting the frivolous nature of the petition, Justice Kathpalia imposed a penalty:

“The petition is not just devoid of merit, but is also totally frivolous, so it is dismissed with costs of ₹20,000/- to be deposited with DHCLSC by the petitioner within one week.”

He further directed the Jail Superintendent to convey the order to the petitioner.

This judgment reiterates the principle that higher courts must exercise inherent jurisdiction cautiously, especially when statutory bars exist, and must avoid intervention in pending interlocutory matters unless there is manifest injustice.

Date of Decision: 17 July, 2025