The Delhi High Court has declined to entertain a petition seeking registration of an FIR and an investigation by a Special Investigation Team or the Central Bureau of Investigation into the alleged recovery of a large amount of cash from the residence of former judge Yashwant Varma after a fire.
A bench of Justice Amit Bansal questioned the petitioner’s jurisdiction to approach the High Court and said the lawyer had other legal remedies available. During the hearing, the bench described the petition as appearing to be a “wild witch hunt” and asked the petitioner whether there was nothing better to do.
The petition was filed by advocate Ghanshyam Upadhyay. It sought criminal proceedings in connection with the alleged discovery of cash at Justice Varma’s Lutyens’ Delhi residence after a fire. The petitioner argued that the incident was extraordinary and that a lower court could not provide an adequate remedy. He also submitted that criminal law could be set in motion by any person and that there was no restriction on doing so in this case.
The bench asked why the petitioner had not approached the sessions court with the request for registration of an FIR. After the court raised the issue of available legal remedies, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the application to consider the options provided under law. The court allowed that request and declined to proceed with the plea.
The alleged cash recovery followed a fire at Justice Varma’s Lutyens’ Delhi residence at about 11.35 pm on March 14, 2025, the night of Holi. Fire department personnel reached the property and brought the fire under control. At the time, Varma was serving as a judge of the Delhi High Court.
The incident subsequently triggered a major controversy. Justice Varma was transferred to the Allahabad High Court and resigned on April 9, 2025, by sending his resignation to President Droupadi Murmu. The source report states that a rare removal process initiated against him by the Lok Sabha became ineffective after his resignation. He had been due to retire on January 5, 2031.
The petitioner had earlier approached the Supreme Court in connection with the matter, but that plea was rejected in August, according to the report. The High Court’s latest order leaves the petitioner to consider the alternative legal procedures identified during the hearing rather than opening a fresh investigation through the petition before the bench.
