The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a petition by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking the registration of a First Information Report against Ghaziabad police officers over an allegedly unlawful search conducted at his residence.
A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana ruled that Suri must pursue available statutory remedies through the local police rather than approaching the highest court directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. The judges also turned down his alternative request to formulate binding guidelines regulating inter-state police raids.
Judicial Directive on Statutory Remedies
Addressing the maintainability of the petition, the bench noted that grievances concerning the registration of an FIR against Uttar Pradesh police personnel could be properly handled if the petitioner approached the jurisdictional police station under Section 175 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The court observed that it had no grounds to presume that the competent police authorities would fail to function strictly in accordance with the law.
Counsel appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government opposed the petition, contending that Suri could not bypass the procedural mechanisms outlined under the BNSS to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the apex court.
Dispute Over Midnight Search Operation
The case stems from an incident that occurred during the intervening night of August 22 and 23, when Ghaziabad police visited Suri’s Delhi residence while tracking Abhishek Upadhyay, a journalist named as an accused in a road-rage case.
Arguing for Suri, advocate Anoop Prakash Awasthi alleged that a large police contingent arriving in approximately 15 vehicles entered the premises without a search warrant. The counsel further contended that the official General Diary entry recording the visit was prepared only after the raid had concluded.
The state’s law officer disputed these allegations before the bench, denying that any unlawful search had taken place. The counsel stated that officers were attempting to locate an individual facing arrest and that an official General Diary entry was already in place. According to the state, Delhi police personnel merely rang the doorbell to inquire whether the suspect was present, and the team departed immediately without stepping inside the residence once Suri confirmed the individual was not there.
