Delhi High Court Rejects Plea Seeking Probe into Investigating Officer for Alleged FIR Manipulation
Facts
The petitioner filed a criminal writ petition alleging that while he had complained of being attacked with a knife, the police registered FIR No. 0083/2026 describing the weapon of offence as a stone, thereby allegedly diluting the seriousness of the offence.
He further claimed that despite submitting a representation dated 12 June 2026 complaining about this discrepancy, the authorities failed to respond. Consequently, he sought directions for production of the original complaint, case diary, PCR records, medical records and an independent inquiry into the conduct of the Investigating Officer.
Issues
- Whether the FIR had been deliberately altered by changing the alleged weapon of offence from a knife to a stone.
- Whether an independent inquiry against the Investigating Officer was warranted.
- Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct production of investigation records and grant the reliefs sought.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner contended that:
- His original complaint alleged repeated stabbing with a knife.
- The Investigating Officer deliberately substituted the weapon in the FIR as stone/tile, thereby reducing the gravity of the offence and favouring the accused.
- His representation highlighting the discrepancy had not been considered by the police.
- An independent inquiry by a senior police officer and production of the original complaint, PCR records, MLC and case diary were necessary to ascertain how the FIR had been altered.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that:
- The original asal tehrir (first signed statement of the complainant) itself described the weapon as a stone.
- The FIR had faithfully reflected the contents of the original complaint.
- The Investigating Officer who had registered the FIR had already been transferred, and the investigation was being conducted by another officer.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered the scope of its writ jurisdiction in matters concerning criminal investigation.
It observed that where the real grievance is obtaining information or records from the police, the petitioner may avail the remedy under the Right to Information Act, rather than invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction merely to collect material in support of allegations against the Investigating Officer.
The Court also examined the original investigation record to verify the petitioner’s allegations before deciding the matter.
Precedent Analysis
The judgment does not rely upon any judicial precedent.
The Court disposed of the matter on the basis of the original investigation record produced before it and the settled principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court called for and personally examined the investigation file.
It found that the asal tehrir, which constituted the petitioner’s first signed complaint, expressly described the weapon of offence as a stone, not a knife. Consequently, the allegation that the Investigating Officer had altered the complaint while registering the FIR was unsupported by the record.
The Court observed that the writ petition appeared to be an attempt to gather material to support allegations against the Investigating Officer rather than to seek any genuine constitutional relief.
When confronted with the original complaint, the petitioner’s counsel, on instructions, asserted that the signatures appearing on the tehrir were not those of the petitioner. The Court, however, found no merit in the overall challenge.
Holding that the petition lacked any factual foundation, the Court concluded that no direction for inquiry or production of records was warranted.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held that the original signed complaint itself referred to the weapon as a stone, thereby negating the allegation that the police had altered the FIR by substituting “knife” with “stone.”
Finding the petition completely devoid of merit and frivolous, the Court dismissed the writ petition along with the accompanying applications.
Case Details
Case: Jagtar Singh v. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Number: W.P. (CRL.) 2291/2026
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia
Date: 03 August 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed as frivolous; Court found the original complaint itself described the weapon as a stone and declined to order any inquiry against the Investigating Officer
