Allahabad High Court
ANIL KUMARversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, as it was not maintainable and was barred by undue delay.
Summary
Petitioner Anil Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 16‑09‑2018 that named him only as a suspect, not as an accused. The State, through the Advocate General, raised two preliminary objections: (1) the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner was not named in the FIR, and (2) the petition was barred by more than seven years of delay, amounting to laches. The Court examined the cited precedents, including the Supreme Court’s decision in Hukum Chand Garg (SLP (Crl.) No. 762 of 2020) and two recent Division Bench judgments of the Allahabad High Court, and found the objections persuasive. The petitioner’s counsel then consented to withdraw the petition, and the State had no objection. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn and vacated any interim orders, while noting that the petitioner could approach the Court afresh if a wanted report were issued against him.
Issues considered
- Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR.
- Whether a delay of more than seven years bars the filing of a writ petition on grounds of laches and negligence.
Subjects
- maintainability
- FIR
- criminal writ petition
- delay
- laches
- IPC sections 420, 406, 120-B
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10763 of 2026
Anil Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 & 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner- Anil Kumar has approached this Court by means of present
criminal misc. writ petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 16.09.2018
lodged by first informant-respondent 3- Subhash Chandra and registered as
Case Crime No. 0988 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, P.S.-
Ghaziabad Kotwali, District- Ghaziabad.
4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing State-
respondents 1 & 2 has raised a preliminary objection by contending that
since petitioner is not named in the FIR, therefore, the present writ petition
on behalf of petitioner is not maintainable. As such, the same is liable to be
dismissed on the ground of maintainability. To buttress his submission, he
has relied upon the judgement/order of Supreme Court dated 07.02.2022
passed 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.
CRLP No. 10763 of 2026
2
5. It is then contended by the learned AGA that present writ petition has
been filed after an expiry of a period of more than 7 years from the date of
the impugned FIR. As such, the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by
delay, negligence/laches. Even though there is clearly laches and negligence
in filing the present writ petition, however, the same has not been
sufficiently explained. Since the delay, laches or negligence in filing the
present writ petition has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, no
interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.
6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly
submits that present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn.
7. Learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 & 2 has no objection to
the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner.
8. As a result, the instant writ petition is accordingly, dismissed as
withdrawn.
9. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
10. It is however, provided that, in case, the complicity of petitioner stands
emerged in the crime in question and there is a wanted report against him,
petitioner will have liberty to approach this Court, afresh.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
May 12, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…