Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

NITIN NAGARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

An accused does not have a substantive right to intervene in the investigation, and the writ petition is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Petitioner Nitin Nagar, a named accused in an FIR dated 24‑02‑2026 (Case Crime No. 23 of 2026), filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking (a) a certiorari to quash the FIR under Sections 103(1), 109, 191(3) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. 2023 and (b) a mandamus directing the investigating officer to obtain and verify CCTV footage to determine his presence at the alleged scene. The State, through the AGA, raised a preliminary objection that an accused has no substantive right to intervene in the investigation and that the petition was therefore misconceived. The Court examined the objection, found it supported by the record, and concluded that the petition lacked merit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition. The decision underscores that an accused cannot claim a procedural right to direct police investigation through a writ.

Issues considered

  • Whether an accused person has a statutory right to intervene in the investigation and seek quashing of an FIR through a writ petition
  • Whether the petition for mandamus directing collection of CCTV footage is maintainable

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Criminal Procedure Code
  • FIR quash
  • certiorari
  • mandamus
  • right of accused
  • investigation
  • writ petition

Judgment

            HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
             CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10762 of 2026

Nitin Nagar
                                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                                       Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                              :     Harish Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)                              :     G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Harish Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 & 2.

2. Perused the record.


3. Petitioner- Nitin Nagar, who is a nominated accused in the FIR dated

24.02.2026 and registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2026 has approached this

Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition with the following

prayer :-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
impugned first information report dated 24.02.2026 lodged by respondent No.4
registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 109, 191(3), 61(2) of
B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Echotech I, District- Gautam Buddha Nagar (Annexure
No. 6 of the writ petition).

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned
Investigating Officer to collect and verify the CCTV footage of 24.02.2026 from CCTV
Cameras installed in premises of District and Session Court, Gautam Buddha Nagar
along with the CCTV footage which has already been collected by concerned police
from the place of incident, in respect of Case Crime No. 23 of 2026, Police Station
Ecotech I, Gautambuddha Nagar to ascertain that whether the petitioner was present
at the place of alleged incident or not and to take appropriate action accordingly; so
that fair and impartial investigation by concern police may be ensured."
                                                                                                CRLP No. 10762 of 2026
                                                                       2


                                    4. Learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 & 2 has raised a

                                    preliminary objection by contending that an accused has no right of say

                                    during course of investigation. As such, the present writ petition is

                                    misconceived and, therefore, liable to be dismissed.


                                    5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not

                                    overcome the same.


                                    6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA

                                    representing State-respondents 1 & 2 and upon perusal of record, we find

                                    that the objections raised by the learned AGA in opposition to present writ

                                    petition are clearly borne out from the record.


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


                                    8. It is accordingly, dismissed.



                                                                  (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Rama Kant




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
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.