Maintainability of Petition for Quashing of FIR under Section 174A IPC: Delhi High Court Judgment
Introduction
The judgment delivered by Hon’ble Justice Girish Kathpalia in CRL.M.C. 5968/2026 deals with an important procedural issue concerning the maintainability of a petition seeking quashing of an FIR and the locus standi of the persons approaching the High Court. The petitioners sought quashing of FIR No. 407/2019 registered at Police Station Dwarka South, District Dwarka, Delhi, concerning an offence under Section 174A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The principal question before the Court was not whether the allegations contained in the FIR were ultimately correct or whether the offence under Section 174A IPC was made out on merits. Rather, the Court was called upon to examine whether the petitioners themselves had the necessary locus standi to maintain the petition, particularly when they were not shown as accused persons in the impugned FIR.
Background of the Case
The petitioners approached the Hon’ble Delhi High Court seeking quashing of FIR No. 407/2019 registered at Police Station Dwarka South. The FIR related to proceedings under Section 174A IPC.
On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that the FIR was liable to be quashed on the ground that proceedings concerning Section 174 IPC could be initiated only in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and on the direction of the competent Magistrate. It was further contended that, in the present case, the FIR had been registered on the complaint of the daughter-in-law of the petitioners, who was herself working as a police official.
Thus, the petitioners attempted to challenge the very initiation and continuation of the criminal proceedings by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
Objection Regarding Locus Standi
At the outset, the learned APP appearing for the State, assisted by the Investigating Officer/SI Amit Kumar, raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition.
The State pointed out that the petitioners were not the accused persons named in the impugned FIR. Consequently, according to the State, the petitioners had no locus standi to seek quashing of the FIR.
This objection assumed significance because a person invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court for quashing criminal proceedings must demonstrate a legally recognizable interest or prejudice arising from the proceedings sought to be quashed. The Court therefore focused on the status of the petitioners in relation to the FIR and the investigation.
Earlier Proceedings Before the High Court
Another important circumstance considered by the Court was the existence of an earlier petition filed by the same petitioners.
The petitioners submitted that they were receiving notices from the Investigating Officer requiring them to join the investigation. However, the State brought to the Court’s attention that the petitioners had previously challenged those notices by filing Crl. M.C. 3409/2026.
The said earlier petition was disposed of on 05.05.2026 by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court. During those proceedings, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the petitioners were ready and willing to join the investigation and participate therein. On the basis of that submission, the earlier petition was withdrawn by the petitioners.
Therefore, the Court was faced with a situation where the petitioners had previously approached the High Court in connection with the investigation, had expressed their willingness to cooperate with the investigation and had thereafter filed the present petition seeking quashing of the FIR.
Finding of the Court
When the Court called upon learned counsel for the petitioners to address the issue of locus standi and maintainability, no substantive answer was furnished. Ultimately, learned counsel submitted that appropriate orders may be passed.
The Hon’ble Court accordingly took into consideration two significant circumstances:
- The petitioners were not the accused persons in the impugned FIR and therefore lacked the necessary locus standi to maintain the petition for quashing of the FIR; and
- In the earlier proceedings, namely Crl. M.C. 3409/2026, the petitioners had themselves submitted before a Coordinate Bench that they were ready and willing to join the investigation, pursuant to which the earlier petition challenging the investigation notices was withdrawn.
In view of these circumstances, the Hon’ble Court held that the present petition was not maintainable.
Importance of the Judgment
The judgment emphasizes that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court cannot ordinarily be invoked by a person who does not have a legally sustainable interest in the criminal proceedings sought to be challenged.
A petition for quashing of an FIR is a serious remedy because the exercise of such jurisdiction can bring criminal proceedings to an end at the threshold. Therefore, the person approaching the Court must demonstrate that the criminal proceedings directly affect his or her legal rights or position.
Where the petitioners are not even accused in the FIR, the question of their locus standi becomes particularly significant. Mere apprehension of being called for investigation or receiving notices from the Investigating Officer does not, by itself, necessarily confer a right upon such persons to seek quashing of the entire FIR.
Effect of the Earlier Withdrawal
The judgment also demonstrates the importance of statements and undertakings made by parties in earlier proceedings.
In the earlier petition, the petitioners had challenged the notices requiring them to join investigation. However, instead of pursuing that challenge to adjudication, they submitted before the Coordinate Bench that they were willing to join and participate in the investigation, resulting in withdrawal of the petition.
The High Court, while deciding the subsequent petition, took note of this earlier order. Thus, a litigant who has made a specific submission before a Court and obtained an order on the basis thereof cannot ordinarily ignore the circumstances and position emerging from that earlier proceeding while filing a subsequent petition.
Conclusion
The judgment in CRL.M.C. 5968/2026 is significant from the standpoint of locus standi, maintainability of petitions for quashing criminal proceedings and consistency in judicial proceedings.
The Hon’ble Delhi High Court did not enter into the merits of the allegations forming the basis of FIR No. 407/2019. Instead, the petition was dismissed at the threshold because the petitioners lacked the requisite locus standi, particularly as they were not accused persons in the impugned FIR. The Court also considered the fact that the petitioners had previously approached the High Court against the investigation notices and had withdrawn that petition after expressing their willingness to join the investigation.
The decision therefore reinforces the principle that before examining the merits of a challenge to an FIR, the Court may first examine whether the person approaching the Court is legally entitled to maintain such a challenge. Procedural history, previous statements made before the Court, and the actual status of the petitioner in the criminal proceedings are all relevant considerations in determining maintainability.
Accordingly, the present petition and the accompanying applications were dismissed, leaving the parties to pursue such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.
Key Principle: A person who is not an accused in an FIR cannot ordinarily seek quashing of the FIR merely because he or she has been called to participate in the investigation, particularly where the person has previously undertaken before the Court to join and cooperate with the investigation.