Allahabad High Court
AKHILESH KUMAR PAND EY AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A person who is a named accused in the FIR does not have locus standi to seek a direction for fair and expeditious investigation, and the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
Petitioners Akhilesh Kumar Pandey and another filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking an order that the State conduct a fair and expeditious investigation of case crime No. 357 of 2025, arising from an FIR dated 28‑09‑2025. The petition was initially filed without a certified copy of the FIR, leading to an exemption application, which became moot after the petitioners later submitted the FIR copy. The respondents, represented by the Advocate General, contended that because the petitioners were named accused in the FIR, they lacked any right to pray for such investigation. The Court agreed, holding that a named accused does not have locus standi to seek a direction for investigation, and consequently dismissed the writ petition. The exemption application was also dismissed as infructuous.
Issues considered
- Whether a person named as an accused in the FIR has locus standi to file a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a direction for fair and expeditious investigation.
- Whether the exemption application filed for non‑attachment of the FIR copy becomes infructuous upon later submission of the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318, 336, 338, 340, 351, 352
Subjects
- criminal miscellaneous writ
- fair investigation
- locus standi
- named accused
- exemption application
- High Court of Allahabad
- IPC sections
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10187 of 2026
Akhilesh Kumar Pand Ey And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dileep Kumar Yadav, Gaurav Chauhan,
Mridul Shekhar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
Ref: On Exemption Application
Heard Mr. Mridul Shekhar, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned
A.G.A. for State/respondents1,2,3.
Present writ petition has been filed without annexing certified copy of the
F.I.R giving rise to present criminal misc. writ petition. Accordingly
petitioner has filed above mentioned exemption application from filing the
certified copy of the F.I.R at the time of filing the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit in Court
today, annexing along with same a certified copy of the F.I.R giving rise to
present criminal misc. writ petition. It is thus urged by the learned counsel
for petitioner that since certified copy of the F.I.R. has been brought on
record, therefore, aforesaid exemption application has been rendered
infructuous.
Learned A.G.A. does not oppose the submissions urged by the learned
counsel for petitioner.
In view of above, the exemption application is dismissed as having been
rendered infructuous.
Stamp reporter shall submit a fresh report as to whether any other defect
exists or not in present writ petition.
CRLP No. 10187 of 2026
2
Ref: On Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
Heard Mr. Mridul Shekhar, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned
A.G.A. for State/respondents1,2,3.
Perused the record.
Petitioner- Akhilesh Kumar Pandey And Another have approached this
Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition commanding
respondents to conclude fair and expeditions investigation of Case Crime
No. 357 of 2025, under sections 318 (4), 336(3), 338, 340 (2), 351(3), 352
BNS, Police Station- Jhunsi District- Prayagaraj, arising out of F.I.R.
dated 28.9.2025, lodged by first informant Atmaram, the writ petitioners.
On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A submits that since
petitioners have b een nominated as named accused in the F.I.R. therefore,
they do not have any right to pray for fair and expeditious investigation of
concerned case crime number.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not
overcome the same.
Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
representing State/respondents-1,2,3 and upon perusal of record, we find that
since petitioners are named accused, therefore, they do not have any right to
seek fair and expeditious investigation of concerned case crime number.
As such, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
It is accordingly dismissed.
May 12, 2026
Arshad
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ARSHAD MAHMOOD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…