A writ alleging FIR manipulation was dismissed as frivolous where the signed tehrir contradicted the petitioner’s claim.

The petitioner sought directions concerning the investigation in FIR No. 0083/2026, registered at Police Station Rajinder Nagar, alleging that although he had reported an assault with a knife, the FIR described the weapon as a stone/tile, thereby diluting the offence and favouring the accused.

He also sought a response to his representation dated 12 June 2026, production of the original complaint, DD entries, PCR/112 records, MLC, case diary and other contemporaneous material, and an independent inquiry by a senior police officer into the conduct of the Investigating Officer.

On the Court’s direction, the Investigating Officer produced the investigation file, which contained the petitioner’s signed asal tehrir and the rukka.

The Court found that the tehrir itself described the weapon as a stone and not a knife.

The petitioner’s counsel initially stated that the tehrir was not within the petitioner’s knowledge, but, on instructions, subsequently asserted that the signatures on it were not those of the petitioner.

1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to writ directions requiring the police to respond to his representation and to produce investigation-related records concerning the alleged discrepancy between the weapon described in his complaint and the FIR.

2. Whether an independent inquiry by a senior police officer was warranted into the Investigating Officer’s alleged substitution of “knife” with “stone/tile” in the FIR.

3. Whether the writ petition was maintainable when the petitioner could seek information from the police authorities under the RTI Act and the investigation had already been entrusted to another Investigating Officer.

The Court applied the principle that writ jurisdiction should not ordinarily be invoked to enable a litigant to collect evidence or material in support of allegations against an Investigating Officer when an alternative statutory mechanism, such as an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is available for obtaining relevant information.

The Court also relied on the evidentiary significance of the original signed complaint or asal tehrir as the contemporaneous document forming the basis of the FIR, and assessed the petitioner’s allegation against that document.

No specific precedent or further statutory provision was expressly relied upon in the judgment.

The Court examined the investigation file instead of accepting the petitioner’s allegation at face value.

The original asal tehrir, bearing the petitioner’s signature, described the weapon as a stone, which contradicted the central premise of the petition that the police had altered a complaint referring to a knife.

The petitioner’s subsequent assertion that the signatures were not his was inconsistent with the earlier submission that the tehrir was merely outside his knowledge.

Further, the former Investigating Officer had been transferred and the matter was being investigated by the current Investigating Officer, reducing the basis for the requested directions against the investigation process.

The Court held that the petition was effectively an attempt to obtain material to substantiate allegations against the police, for which writ jurisdiction was inappropriate and recourse to the RTI Act was available, at least in relation to the request for information.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the accompanying applications were also disposed of.

No direction for a police inquiry, production of the requested records, or response to the petitioner’s representation was granted.