Delhi High Court
Mrs X vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 19 May, 2025
$~78
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2025
+ W.P.(CRL) 1664/2025 & CRL.M.A. 15548/2025
MRS X .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arun Baali and Ms. Arisha
Ahmad, Advocates.
versus
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC for State
with SI Ravi Malik, PS Vasant Kunj.
CORAM: JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The petitioner seeks registration of an FIR and investigation of her
complaint dated 23.04.2025, lodged at PS Vasant Kunj against her husband,
alleging that he has been disseminating her personal pictures with her friend
prior to her marriage amongst their friends and relatives. Those pictures
have been annexed as Annexure-C to the petition. In view of the nature of
the present proceedings, I would refrain from commenting in detail on the
nature of those pictures, depicting the petitioner and her friend prior to her
marriage except that the same do not depict any obscenity.
W.P.(CRL) 1664/2025 Page 1 of 4 pages
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.19 18:49:02
+05'30'
Signing Date:19.05.2025
19:35:19
2. In response to a specific query, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that petitioner has opted not to file any civil suit seeking injunction against
her husband from circulating those pictures.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner has been
running from pillar to post to prevent circulation of those pictures but she
has got no relief and her image in society is at stake.
4. Learned ASC, accepting notice, points out on instructions from
Investigating Officer/SI Ravi that learned counsel for petitioner is apparently
not truthfully briefed by his client. It is disclosed by learned ASC that vide
order dated 02.05.2025, the learned Trial Magistrate dealing with the
application of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women
from Domestic Violence Act has already restrained the husband of the
petitioner from circulating those pictures to anyone or on social media
platforms.
5. Be that as it may, the issue is as to whether in view of availability of
alternate efficacious remedies in the form of civil suit, application under
Section 156(3) CrPC and complaint case under Section 200 CrPC, should
this court exercise writ jurisdiction and issue mandamus to register FIR. In
this regard, learned counsel for petitioner places reliance on an Order passed
by the Supreme Court in the case of Mohindro vs State of Punjab, (2001) 9
SCC 581.
W.P.(CRL) 1664/2025 Page 2 of 4 pages
KATHPALIA
Digitally Signed KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.19 18:49:24
+05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:19.05.2025
19:35:19
6. I have examined the order cited by learned counsel for petitioner. The
same does not deal with the scope of issuance of mandamus. The said order
deals with the duty of the police to register the FIR and investigate.
7. Learned ASC, accepting notice submits that the legal position is clear
that in such cases, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to issue mandamus.
Learned ASC refers to the judgments in the cases titled Sakiri Vasu vs State
of UP & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 409 and M. Subramaniam & Anr. vs S.
Janaki & Anr., (2020) 16 SCC 728.
8. In the case of M. Subramaniam (supra), a three Judge bench of the
Supreme Court examined the issue at length and placing reliance on the
judgment in the case of Sakiri Vasu (supra) reiterated that if a person has a
grievance that the local police is not registering his FIR under Section 154
CrPC, then he can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section
154(3) CrPC and if even that does not yield satisfactory result, it is open to
the aggrieved person to file an application under Section 156(3) CrPC before
the magistrate.
9. Further, not a whisper of explanation has come from the side of
petitioner for her decision not to file civil suit for injunction in order to
restrain her husband from circulating those pictures, despite the fact that in
such suit, she would have been able to seek and obtain an ad-interim
injunction order. Insistence of the petitioner in such circumstances for
registration of FIR appears to be for oblique purposes.
W.P.(CRL) 1664/2025 Page 3 of 4 pages
GIRISH Digitally signed by GIRISH
KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.19 18:49:40
+05'30'
By:RAHUL YADAV
Signing Date:19.05.2025
19:35:19
10. Considering the above circumstances, I find no reason to invoke writ
jurisdiction to issue mandamus to police for registration of an FIR against
husband of the petitioner on the issue under discussion. The petition as well
as pending application are dismissed. However, as requested by counsel for
petitioner, it is directed that this order shall not be read to influence the other
remedies, if resorted to by the petitioner.
GIRISH GIRISH KATHPALIA
KATHPALIA Date: 2025.05.19
18:49:58 +05'30'
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
MAY 19, 2025/DR
W.P.(CRL) 1664/2025 Page 4 of 4 pages
