“Insistence of the petitioner… for registration of FIR appears to be for oblique purposes”, - Delhi High Court pronounced a firm refusal to entertain a writ petition seeking directions to the police for registering an FIR against the petitioner’s husband, who was alleged to have circulated her personal photographs. Justice Girish Kathpalia, dismissing the plea under Article 226 of the Constitution, underscored that “writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory civil and criminal remedies, especially when efficacious legal recourse is available.”

“Insistence of the petitioner in such circumstances for registration of FIR appears to be for oblique purposes.”

The petitioner, identified as Mrs. X, alleged that her husband had circulated her personal photographs—taken before their marriage—among friends and family, thereby violating her privacy and damaging her dignity. Though the images were not “obscene,” she stated they were being misused to her detriment.

Despite this serious claim, she admitted to not filing either a civil suit seeking injunction or an application under Sections 154(3) or 156(3) of the CrPC to seek redress. Instead, she invoked the constitutional writ jurisdiction, praying for a mandamus directing the police to register an FIR.

Justice Kathpalia sternly rejected the misuse of writ jurisdiction: “The grievance raised in this writ petition relates to circulation of some photographs of the petitioner clicked before marriage. Though these photographs are not obscene, the petitioner claims that they are personal and private… she has not filed a civil suit for injunction, nor invoked Section 156(3) CrPC.”

The Court made clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be employed as an alternative to statutory routes: “The existence of an alternative efficacious remedy is a valid ground to deny writ relief… Registration of an FIR is governed by a comprehensive statutory scheme.”

Referring to binding precedents, the Court invoked the Supreme Court’s ratio in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, where it was held that complainants must exhaust remedies under CrPC rather than directly approach the High Court:

“The judicially evolved rule of self-restraint precludes the High Court from issuing a direction for registration of FIR when the aggrieved person has not approached the concerned Magistrate as per CrPC.”

The Court did not mince words in casting doubt on the petitioner’s intent:

“Not a whisper of explanation has come from the side of petitioner for her decision not to file civil suit... Insistence of the petitioner in such circumstances for registration of FIR appears to be for oblique purposes.”

Finding no justification to entertain the petition in writ jurisdiction, the Court concluded:

“The existence of alternate remedies, both civil and criminal, sufficiently address the petitioner’s grievance. This court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.”

“Accordingly, the writ petition as well as the pending application are dismissed.”

In a case that brings into sharp focus the boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction vis-à-vis criminal procedure, the Delhi High Court has unequivocally affirmed that writ courts cannot be converted into first-resort grievance forums when statutory mechanisms exist. By labelling the petitioner’s persistence as “oblique,” the Court has sent a strong message on the responsible invocation of Article 226.

Date of Decision: 19 May 2025

 “Insistence of the petitioner in such circumstances for registration of FIR appears to be for oblique purposes.”

The petitioner, identified as Mrs. X, alleged that her husband had circulated her personal photographs—taken before their marriage—among friends and family, thereby violating her privacy and damaging her dignity. Though the images were not “obscene,” she stated they were being misused to her detriment.

Despite this serious claim, she admitted to not filing either a civil suit seeking injunction or an application under Sections 154(3) or 156(3) of the CrPC to seek redress. Instead, she invoked the constitutional writ jurisdiction, praying for a mandamus directing the police to register an FIR.

Justice Kathpalia sternly rejected the misuse of writ jurisdiction: “The grievance raised in this writ petition relates to circulation of some photographs of the petitioner clicked before marriage. Though these photographs are not obscene, the petitioner claims that they are personal and private… she has not filed a civil suit for injunction, nor invoked Section 156(3) CrPC.”

The Court made clear that writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be employed as an alternative to statutory routes: “The existence of an alternative efficacious remedy is a valid ground to deny writ relief… Registration of an FIR is governed by a comprehensive statutory scheme.”

Referring to binding precedents, the Court invoked the Supreme Court’s ratio in Sakiri Vasu v. State of UP, (2008) 2 SCC 409 and M. Subramaniam v. S. Janaki, (2020) 16 SCC 728, where it was held that complainants must exhaust remedies under CrPC rather than directly approach the High Court:

“The judicially evolved rule of self-restraint precludes the High Court from issuing a direction for registration of FIR when the aggrieved person has not approached the concerned Magistrate as per CrPC.”

The Court did not mince words in casting doubt on the petitioner’s intent:

“Not a whisper of explanation has come from the side of petitioner for her decision not to file civil suit... Insistence of the petitioner in such circumstances for registration of FIR appears to be for oblique purposes.”

Finding no justification to entertain the petition in writ jurisdiction, the Court concluded:

“The existence of alternate remedies, both civil and criminal, sufficiently address the petitioner’s grievance. This court is not inclined to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction.”

“Accordingly, the writ petition as well as the pending application are dismissed.”

In a case that brings into sharp focus the boundaries of constitutional jurisdiction vis-à-vis criminal procedure, the Delhi High Court has unequivocally affirmed that writ courts cannot be converted into first-resort grievance forums when statutory mechanisms exist. By labelling the petitioner’s persistence as “oblique,” the Court has sent a strong message on the responsible invocation of Article 226.

Date of Decision: 19 May 2025