Not Maintainable: Delhi High Court Rejects Telecom Watchdog’s Application To Quash FIR And Initiate Contempt Proceedings
The High Court held that once a writ petition has been finally disposed of, a miscellaneous application seeking substantive relief, such as quashing of an FIR or initiation of contempt proceedings, cannot be entertained, except for correction of clerical or arithmetical errors.
Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, while dismissing a miscellaneous application filed by Telecom Watchdog, has held that a Court becomes functus officio once a writ petition is finally disposed of, and therefore cannot entertain a miscellaneous application seeking substantive relief thereafter.
The Court was hearing a miscellaneous application filed by Telecom Watchdog in a previously disposed writ petition, seeking quashing of an FIR registered during the original proceedings and initiation of contempt action against officials for allegedly interfering with court proceedings.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela relied on precedents of the Supreme Court, observing: “the substantive prayer made in this miscellaneous application is for quashing the proceedings qua the petitioner emanating from FIR no.35/2021. As a matter of fact, the relief being sought by moving the instant miscellaneous application is for quashing the FIR itself for which appropriate recourse available to the petitioner is to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Section 482 of the CrPC/528 of the BNSS. Instead of instituting fresh proceedings, the instant miscellaneous application has been moved in a writ petition, which stood disposed of way back on 09.08.2024 and, therefore, keeping in view the law pertaining to the doctrine of functus officio as discussed above, we have no hesitation to hold that the instant miscellaneous application is not maintainable”.
Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan represented the petitioner, while Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC, represented the respondents.
Background
Telecom Watchdog had earlier approached the High Court in the public interest, alleging irregularities in the award of telecom contracts. That writ petition had been disposed of after the petitioner sought liberty to pursue appropriate remedies in case a fresh cause of action arose.
However, during the pendency of that writ, an FIR was registered in relation to internal departmental documents furnished before the Court. Subsequent summons issued under law prompted the petitioner to file a miscellaneous application alleging obstruction and seeking protection.
It was argued that the proceedings initiated through the FIR amounted to interference with the earlier judicial process and warranted contempt action.
Court’s Observation
The Delhi High Court held that once a writ petition is terminated by final disposal, no further proceedings remain pending, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to entertain any substantive prayer through a miscellaneous application. It was observed that entertaining such pleas would undermine the doctrine of finality.
Referring to Ajay Kumar Jain v. Union of India and Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Godavari Finance, the Bench reiterated that a post-disposal application is maintainable only to correct clerical or arithmetical errors, or in rare cases where the order is purely executory and subsequent events render implementation impossible.
It further noted that if the petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR, an independent statutory remedy is available either through Article 226 or other appropriate provisions of law. The liberty granted during the disposal of the writ did not authorise reopening the same proceedings.
The Court emphasised that permitting such miscellaneous pleas would cause “confusion and chaos and the finality of the proceedings would cease to have any meaning”, as cautioned by the Supreme Court.
Given that the contempt plea also arose from subsequent events and not from a violation of any direction issued in the disposed writ, the Court held that initiating contempt within the same matter was beyond its jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Holding the miscellaneous application not maintainable, the High Court dismissed the plea seeking quashing of the FIR and contempt action. It clarified that the dismissal would not prevent the petitioner from availing remedies provided under law before the appropriate forum.
Cause Title: Telecom Watchdog v. Union of India & Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:10854-DB)
Appearances
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Prashant Bhushan, with Advocates Pranav Sachdeva, Sanyam Jain, P. Rohit Ram, Khushboo Singhal
Respondents: Pratima N. Lakra, CGSC with Sanjay Lao, SC Criminal, Sanjeev Bhandari, ASC Criminal, N.K. Jha, APP, Advocates Shaildendra Kumar Mishra, Aryan Sachdeva, Vikas Kumar and Ayush Kapur