Allahabad High Court
RAVI SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
A criminal miscellaneous writ petition filed by a person not named in the FIR is not maintainable and, if the petitioner seeks withdrawal, the court may dismiss it as withdrawn.
Summary
Petitioner Ravi Singh filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 30‑11‑2025 that named others but not him, alleging lack of maintainability. The petitioners argued that because they were not named in the FIR, they could not invoke the writ and cited several precedents to support dismissal. The respondents, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, concurred with the petitioners’ view and also noted that the petitioner had been arrested and instructed that the writ not be pursued. Consequently, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition, a request the court accepted. The High Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, vacating any interim orders previously in place.
Issues considered
- Can a person not named in an FIR maintain a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging that FIR?
- Is a criminal miscellaneous writ petition deemed withdrawn when the petitioner expressly requests its withdrawal?
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(9)
Subjects
- maintainability
- criminal miscellaneous writ
- FIR
- withdrawal
- Arms Act
- court jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10389 of 2026
Ravi Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rishabh Kumar Pandey, Santosh Kumar
Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
Heard Mr. Rishabh Kumar Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1,2,3.
Perused the record.
Petitioner- Ravi Singh has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the F.I.R. dated 30.11.2025, lodged
by first informant Ramashankar Yadav and registered as Case Crime No.
208 of 2025, under sections 125 BNS, 25(9) Arms Act, Police Station-
Audyogik Kshetra, District- Prayagraj.
On the matter being taken up, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that
petitioner is not named in the F.I.R. Therefore, he cannot mainitian the
present writ petition. As such, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of maintainability.
To lend legal support to their submission, they have relied upon judgement
and order dated 7.2.2022, passed by the Apex Court in Special Leave to
Appeal (Crl) No. 762 of 2020 ( Hukum Chand Garg and Another vs. the
State of U.P.) as well as the order dated 27.2.2025, passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3869 of 2025
(Kulvant Singh Vs. State of U.P.) and order dated 9.1.2023, passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 235 of 2023 (Priyanka Singh Vs. State
of U.P. and 2 Others). They therefore submit that in view of above, the
present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as being not maintainable.
When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that
CRLP No. 10389 of 2026
2
petitioner has been arrested during the pendency of present writ petition. He,
therefore, contends that he has received instructions not to press this writ
petition. As such present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
Learned A.G.A. has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned
counsel for petitioner.
In view of above, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn.
Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
May 6, 2026
Arshad
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ARSHAD MAHMOOD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…