Chandra Dhari Singh ORDER
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner inter alia seeking issuance of writ of certiorari for immediate arrest of accused persons and taking appropriate action against the investigation officer for delay in lodging FIR and helping accused persons.
2. Mr. Shakti Narayan learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Rs. 32,00,000 (Rupees Thirty-Two Lakhs Only) has been deposited in the account of petitioner/accused as donation. It is further submitted that the Police have caused a substantial delay of sixteen days in lodging the FIR. They lodged the FIR on 8th December 2021 after the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(CRL.) 2433/2021 dated 7th December 2021.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that the police is not investigating the matter as per the mandate of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court. Even after lodging the FIR, the accused have not yet been arrested by the police. It is therefore prayed that an order be passed directing the police to arrest the accused immediately and to initiate the proceedings against the SHO, Dwarka North and ACP, Dwarka Sector 23 as they have not discharged their duty properly.
4. Per contra, Mr. Rajesh Mahajan, learned ASC appearing for State and police officials vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the instant petition is nothing but a gross misuse of process. The police has already lodged the FIR and the investigating the matter in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this High Court.
5. It is submitted that after perusing the writ petition, it is evident that there is no ground available for invoking the extraordinary powers of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned ASC further informed this Court that despite several requests, the petitioner has joined the investigation only once i.e. on 22nd February, 2022. On 9th March, 2022, a notice has been issued to the petitioner but he has not joined the investigation.
6. Furthermore, it is submitted that investigation is going to be completed in near future, and the chargesheet will be filed as soon as the investigation is completed. Thus, this is a premature stage to file a writ petition praying for interference in the investigation. Learned ASC further submitted that this petition being a gross misuse of process of law, is devoid of merit and hence, is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Heard learned counsels for parties and perused the record.
8. In order to appreciate the case at hand, it is pertinent to refer to the position of law laid down as to the exercise of the writ jurisdiction by the High Court.
9. In the case of Whirlpool Corporation. v. Registrar of Trade Marks MANU/SC/0664/1998 : (1998) 8 SCC 1, the Apex Court had held as follows:-
"15. Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court, having regard to the facts of the case, has a discretion to entertain or not to entertain a writ petition. But the High Court has imposed upon itself certain restrictions one of which is that if an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. But the alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not to operate as a bar in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the en........