Court Reiterates Inadmissibility of Writ Jurisdiction for Challenging FIR and Investigation Orders
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court, presided over by Justice Pankaj Purohit, dismissed writ petitions filed by Santosh Iyer and others seeking to quash an FIR and an order for further investigation. The court underscored that such matters should be addressed through appropriate judicial proceedings and not under writ jurisdiction.
The writ petitions (Criminal No. 1624 and 1628 of 2025) sought to nullify FIR No. 71 of 2024, registered at Police Station Patel Nagar, Dehradun, under sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the petitioners contested an order dated November 10, 2025, by the 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun, which rejected a final report and directed further investigation.
The court noted that previous writ petitions challenging the same FIR had been dismissed as infructuous after a final report was filed. However, upon a protest petition by the complainant, the Magistrate ordered a fresh investigation. The High Court held that the petitioners should have challenged the Magistrate's order through proper judicial channels rather than filing writ petitions.
Justice Purohit emphasized that the High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, cannot entertain prayers for quashing FIRs or orders for further investigation, as the appropriate remedy lies with the competent judicial forum. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed in limine, and the court did not delve into the merits of quashing the Magistrate's order for further investigation.
This judgment reaffirms the legal principle that writ jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory remedies available under criminal procedure, thereby directing petitioners to seek redressal through the correct legal avenues.
Bottom Line:
Writ petitions seeking quashing of FIR and further investigation orders dismissed as not maintainable. Court cannot entertain such prayers in writ jurisdiction.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 482, 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Santosh Iyer v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2844637
