Karnataka HC: Ex-Parte Order of German Court Granting Custody to Mother Not Acceptable  ||  P&H HC Issues Guidelines to Check Unnecessary Arrests  ||  SC: Members of RPF Can Seek Benefit Under Employees Compensation Act  ||  SC: For Appling S.106 of TPA, Tenant Must Prove That Premises was Leased for Manufacturing Purpose  ||  SC: Courts Should Restrain While Exercising Judicial Review in Contracts Involving Technical Issues  ||  Del. HC: Accrual of Cause of Action at a Place is not a Consideration for Determining Jurisdiction  ||  Mad. HC to State: Prevent use of Stickers such as ‘Police’ or ‘GOI’ on Private Vehicles  ||  Bom. HC: Magistrate Needn’t Provide Additional Reasons for Amount of Interim Compensation Awarded  ||  Del. HC: ‘THEOBROMA’ is Free to Expand its Outlets Across the Country  ||  Ker. HC: Detention Order Under KAPPA 2007 must be Confirmed Within 3 Months from Date of Execution    

Lalit Raj vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Home Affairs And Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (16 Mar 2022)

High Court should not ordinarily exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, if an effective and efficacious alternate remedy is available



The instant writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 has been filed on behalf of the Petitioner seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.

In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the FIR has already been lodged by the police against the accused. As per the statement of the learned APP, the investigation agency is investigating the matter in accordance with law, and the investigation is about to be completed in near future and the chargesheet will be filed soon after. It has been prayed by the Petitioner that, the accused be arrested by the police. 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.

It is settled law 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. Present Court does not find any merit in the instant petition and hence, is not inclined to entertain the petition for exercising its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved