The Supreme Court refused to grant any relief in a plea filed by former Delhi Mayor Farhad Suri seeking an FIR against Uttar Pradesh Police officials and asked him to approach the jurisdictional police station by filing an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.

Suri alleged that UP Police officers raided his Nizamuddin East residence in Delhi without a warrant while searching for YouTuber Abhishek Upadhyay regarding a road rage accident case. Upadhyay also recently reported on alleged thefts involving Ram Mandir donations.

In the petition filed by Upadhyay, the Court had directed the Ghaziabad Police to file an affidavit explaining the necessity and scope of seeking extensive digital data—including IMEI numbers and social media records from platforms like X —in connection with an FIR registered against Abhishek Upadhyay.

Previously, the Court had granted interim protection from arrest to Upadhyay. The Court had directed that no coercive action be taken against Upadhyay in the current FIR or any potential future FIRs, while instructing authorities to supply him with a copy of the FIR registered at Indirapuram Police Station.

The Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana ordered, "The relief regarding direction to register FIR against the police officials of State of UP can very well be addressed if the petitioner approaches the jurisdictional police station through an application under Section 175(3) of the BNSS. We have no reason to doubt that the competent police authority will strictly act in accordance with law."


The Counsel appearing for the State submitted that the present writ petition was completely misconceived. He submitted that Article 32 is being used as a surrogate to file bail petitions, anticipatory bail petitions, and also criminal writs seeking registration of the FIRs. He added that the law provides for a proper procedure in case the FIR is not being registered.

Regarding the visit of the Police Officials at the residence of the Petitioner, the State submitted, "There was a proper arrest memo drawn under Section 55. We got a GD entry at our police station, came to Nizamuddin police station, went to the police station, informed the Delhi local police. The Delhi police station, assigned two officers with us. They came with us. We simply—those police officers from Delhi Police—they simply rang the bell of this gentleman's apartment because, according to our surveillance team, he was within 200 meters of the nearest tower. So we were trying to find out, and found out, is so-and-so gentleman by any chance residing here?...When he said no, we simply left...We have not even entered his house; we simply rang his bell. He also has a statutory duty to allow us to do our job. He is being hypersensitive."

To which the Petitioner submitted that at 12:45 at night the Police came with approximately 15 vehicles, with nearly more than 30 to 50 personnel. He also sought directions in this regard.

The Court said, "There is no deficiency of guidelines. In that case, there is an FIR against the petitioner in that case, and therefore the question of liberty was there; we protected him. In your case, you are wanting an FIR to be registered. It's not that you are not entitled to; you have a right to do that. Seek the statutory mechanism whatever is provided, approach that, and in case the needful is not done, then of course you are entitled to come to."

Upadhyay, who runs a YouTube channel, claimed a police team reached his residence late on August 20 and told him that a case had been registered at Indirapuram police station following allegations of road rage and abusive behaviour.

According to Upadhyay, the alleged incident took place on August 18 near Shipra Mall in Ghaziabad, when a motorcyclist allegedly touched his car. He said the man subsequently called the police emergency helpline 112 and an FIR was registered later.

He alleged that the police team had come to his residence possibly to arrest him, and he requested Ghaziabad police to release CCTV footage of the alleged incident.

According to his plea, Upadhyay has previously reported on alleged irregularities involving donations to the Ram temple in Ayodhya and alleged corruption in the Uttar Pradesh government.

Cause Title: Farhad Suri v. State of U.P. & Ors. [W.P.(Crl.) No. 359/2026]

Tags: