The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a writ petition filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri, who sought registration of an FIR against Uttar Pradesh Police personnel over an alleged late-night visit to his residence searching for Journalist Abhishek Upadhyay.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for Suri submitted that a large police team had allegedly arrived at his residence around 12.45 am, with several vehicles and a substantial number of police personnel. He argued that the incident raised concerns about the manner in which police from one State enter another State for searches or arrests and sought guidelines governing such interstate police operations.
The state disputed the allegations submitting that a proper arrest memo had been prepared and that the UP Police team had informed the local Nizamuddin Police Station before proceeding. According to the submission, Delhi Police personnel accompanied the team, which merely rang the bell at the residence after surveillance suggested that the person they were looking for was within the vicinity. The team left after being told that the person was not there.
The State counsel also referred to Section 44 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), arguing that a person residing at a premises has a statutory obligation to facilitate police entry and search in circumstances contemplated by the provision.
The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana was not inclined to entertain the Article 32 plea for direct registration of an FIR. It indicated that Suri could first approach the jurisdictional police station and invoke the statutory mechanism available to him. The Court observed that if the petitioner approached the concerned police station under Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), there was no reason to doubt that the competent police authority would act in accordance with law.
The petitioner’s counsel also pressed his request for guidelines governing interstate police action, particularly where police personnel allegedly enter another State without first informing the local police. The Bench, however, indicated that there was no immediate need to frame another set of guidelines and directed the petitioner towards the statutory remedy.
“
“There is no deficiency of guidelines. If your grievance is that an FIR has not been registered, you have a right to avail of the statutory mechanism. Why are you invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 32?”
The hearing also came against the backdrop of related proceedings concerning journalist Abhishek Upadhyay, whose petition before the Supreme Court concerns a Ghaziabad road-rage FIR and related police action. The Court had earlier granted Upadhyay interim protection from coercive action.