Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

AKEEL AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

Petitioners lack locus standi to maintain the writ of mandamus; the petition is dismissed.

Summary

Petitioners Akeel and Mohammad Shakil Khan filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the police to conduct a fair and impartial investigation of case crime No. 0140 of 2026, arising from an FIR dated 1 April 2026. They argued that the investigation was biased and that the court should intervene under Section 137(2) of the CrPC. The State, represented by the Advocate General, contended that the petitioners were not named in the FIR and therefore lacked locus standi to invoke the writ. The Court examined the submissions and relied on precedents (Hukum Chand Garg v. State of U.P., Imran Khan v. State of U.P., Prema Devi v. State of U.P.) which held that only persons directly affected or named in the FIR can maintain such writs. Finding the petitioners had no legal right to sue, the Court held the writ petition untenable. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a person not named in the FIR has locus standi to file a writ of mandamus for a fair investigation
  • Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition under Section 137(2) CrPC is maintainable in the absence of such locus standi

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • locus standi
  • writ of mandamus
  • criminal investigation
  • Section 137(2) CrPC
  • petition dismissal

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10392 of 2026

Akeel And Another
                                                         .....Petitioner(s)
                                 Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                       .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :   Maohammd Nadeem
Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :   G.A.

Court No. - 49
                 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
                 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mohammad Nadeem, the learned counsel for petitioners and
the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Akeel and Mohammad Shakil Khan have approached this
Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition for a writ of
mandamus commanding respondents to conduct fair and impartial
investigation of Case Crime No. 0140 of 2026, under Section 137(2)
BNS, Police Station-Gursahiganj, District-Kannauj arising out of FIR
dated 01.04.2026 lodged by first informant-Shahid Ali @ Shanu.

4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents
1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 submits that since petitioners are not named in the FIR
giving rise to concerned case crime number, therefore, petitioners do not
have any locus to maintain present writ petition. To buttress his
submission, the learned A.G.A. thus referred to the judgment dated
07.02.2022 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. and Others) as well as the Division Bench judgments of
this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2025
(Imran Khan Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) decided on 02.04.2025
and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7347 of 2025 (Prema Devi and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) decided on 17.04.2025. On the
above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that present writ petition
                                                                                             CRLP No. 10392 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    is not maintainable and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

                                    5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could
                                    not overcome the same.

                                    6. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for
                                    State-respondents 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 and upon perusal of record, we find
                                    that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present
                                    writ petition are clearly borne out from the record. Furthermore, the same
                                    could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioners with
                                    reference to the record at this stage.

                                    7. As a result, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

                                    8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Vinay

                                                                (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.