GAJJI YADAV @ GAJENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14372 of 2026

Gajji Yadav @ Gajendra
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Ajay Singh Yadav, Rajrshi Gupta, Sr.
                                  Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A., Vivek Singh

                                                                    Reserved

Court No. - 48

                 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
                 HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

                      (Per Hon’ble Tarun Saxena, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:

     "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to

     quash the impugned first information report dated 254.04.2026

     lodged by respondent no.3 in Case Crime No. 166 of 2026, U/s

     103(1) & 238 of BNS, 2023, Police Station Sector 63 Noida, District

     Gautambudh Nagar, U.P.

     II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus

     commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the

     petitioner in pursuance of impugned first information report dated

     24.04.2026 lodged by respondent no.3 in Case Crime No. 166 of

     2026, U/s 103(1) & 238 of BNS, Police Station Sector 63 Noida,

     District Gautambudh Nagar,U.P. "

2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajay

Singh Yadav and Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA-I appearing on
                                                       CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                               2


behalf of the State-respondents and Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3.

3. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the Informant- Resham Yadav,

wife of Malu Ram Yadav, resident of Village Bahlolpur, Police Station

Sector-63, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, has lodged a First

Information Report on 24.04.2026 stating therein that on 04.03.2026, at

approximately 02:00 p.m., her husband Malu Ram Yadav, aged 56 years,

left the house to play Holi. Later on the same day, at about 05:40 p.m., her

son Satyavan Yadav received a phone call from his father's mobile

number. The caller introduced himself as the In-charge of Police Outpost

Bahlolpur and informed her son that his father Malu Ram Yadav, was

lying intoxicated on the roadside near the service road outside Radha
Krishna Temple, Village Bahlolpur, Noida. Upon receiving this

information, her son, immediately rushed to the spot and found his father

in an unconscious condition. He then, brought him home back. And on

the advice of neighbours, they took him to the Kailash Hospital, where the

doctors declared him brought dead. Thereafter, the family performed his

last rites. On the following day, one of the neighbour Jile Singh, son of

Mahesh Yadav, resident of Bahlolpur, informed them that on 04.03.2026

at about 02:07 p.m., he had seen her husband entering the office of Gajji

Yadav, Shivraj Yadav, and Godhan Pehalwan, all sons of Rajendra
Yadav, residents of Bahlolpur. Subsequently, her son Satyavan Yadav,

visited the office of Godhan Pehalwan and Gajji Yadav to inquire about

his father and to view the CCTV footage. However, Godhan Pehalwan

neither disclosed any information regarding her husband nor allowed her

son to view the footage installed Closed-Circuit TV Camera in his office.

Thereafter, her son viewed the CCTV footage from the office of one
                                                       CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                               3


Umesh Yadav, son of Salek Yadav, whose office is situated adjacent to

that of Godhan Pehalwan. The footage clearly shows that on 04.03.2026,

at about 02:00 p,m., her husband entered Godhan Pehalwan's office.

However, he was not seen returning out of that office until approximately

05:00 p.m. Her son possesses a copy of the said CCTV footage and the

same will be produced as and when required.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first

information report. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the

alleged incident is said to have taken place on 04.03.2026, but the first

information report of the said incident has been lodged on 24.04.2026. It
is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after

due deliberations and consultations and the prosecution has failed to offer

any explanation regarding inordinate delay caused in lodging the first

information report. He further submits that the death of the informant’s

husband occurred due to excessive consumption of liquor.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits

that soon after the incident, neither the informant nor her son ever

contacted the petitioner, regarding CCTV footage, on the same day, and

on account of the auto deletion system, the CCTV footage of 04.03.2026

has been deleted. Therefore, it could not be possible for the petitioner to

provide the said CCTV footage to the informant after a lapse of 27 days.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the

informant died on account of excessive consumption of liquor, but false

and fictitious allegations have been made against the petitioner and his

other family members regarding the death of Malu Ram Yadav. He
                                                     CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                               4


further submits that the first information report has been lodged on an

application moved by the informant under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S.

before the court concerned.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide

order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned trial court, the co-accused

Shivraj Yadav has been granted bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2026,

under Sections 103(1) and 238 B.N.S., P.S. Sector-63, Noida, District

Gautambudh Nagar.

8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has criminal

history of one Case Crime No. 148 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323,

504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Phase-3, District Gautambudh Nagar, in which

the petitioner has already been granted bail.

9. Lastly, it has been argued that since there exists no medical

examination report or postmortem examination report of the deceased,

therefore, in absence of any forensic or scientific evidence proving the

death of the deceased to be a homicidal one, it cannot be said that the

petitioner along with other co-accused has committed the murder of the

deceased.

10. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents as well

as learned counsel for the respondent no.3 have opposed the contentions

made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the first information

report contains serious allegations against the petitioner. The present

petitioner along with one co-accused Godhan Yadav, has deliberately

deleted the CCTV footage from their cameras, from which it can be easily

presumed that the petitioner was actually involved in the commission of

the alleged offence.

11. Learned A.G.A. further submits that although the husband of the
                                                          CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                                5


informant was seen entering into the office of petitioner, but his return

was not seen in the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the office of

one Mr. Umesh Kumar. Therefore, it is clear that the husband of

informant, namely, Malu Ram Yadav was present in the office of

petitioner on the date and time as alleged in the first information report,

but his return from there is in suspense.

12. Learned A.G.A. further argued that the petitioner is named in the first

information report and as per the contents of the first information report

and other evidence available on record, prima facie, cognizable offence is

made out against the petitioner. And therefore, the instant writ petition

being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

13. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Legal Analysis

14. The Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers wide powers to

the High Courts to entertain a writ petition, but it is a discretionary and

equitable jurisdiction. The power to quash an F.I.R., however, is

incisively governed by Section 528 B.N.S.S., which preserves the

inherent power of the High Court.

15. The Supreme Court has, time and again, cautioned against the

quashing of the F.I.R.s in writ jurisdiction. The law on the subject is

crystallized as under:-

(A) In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992

Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court laid down seven categories where

F.I.R. can be quashed. The Court also warned that power must be

exercised sparingly and only in “rarest of rare cases”.

(B) In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
                                                            CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                                  6


Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme

Court, in paragraph no. 80, has held as under:-

       “The High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the
       Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R., except in exceptional
       circumstances…..The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the
       appropriate remedy…..Writ Court should not act as an investigating agency or
       trial court.”

(C) In the case of Ms. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. vs.

State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 795, the Supreme Court reiterated that the

High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should not examine the

reliability, genuineness or otherwise of allegations contained in the F.I.R.

16. The rationale behind this consistent view is threefold:-

(a) Investigation is at a nascent stage: After lodging of an F.I.R., the

investigating officer has to investigate the matter……..Quashing of an

F.I.R. at the threshold would scuttle a legitimate investigation.

(b) Disputed questions of fact: The Writ Court under Article 226 does

not adjudicate disputed facts, defence of accused, or a plea of alibi. These

are matter of trial.

(c) Alternative efficacious remedy: Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is a

statutory remedy and where a statute provides specific remedy, writ

jurisdiction is normally not invoked.

17. The exception carved out is limited. A writ for quashing may lies only

where (i) the F.I.R., on its bare reading, does not disclose the commission

of any cognizable offence; (ii) the F.I.R. has been lodged alleging a non

cognizable offence without permission of the Magistrate under Section

174 of the B.N.S.S., or: (iii) there is a gross violation of fundamental

rights apparent on record.
                                                      CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                                 7


18. Now, from the plain reading of the impugned first information report

of the instant case, it is evident that it carries serious allegations of

committing murder of the husband of respondent no. 3 against the

petitioner, who is named in the first information report. Although learned

counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not committed

any offence as alleged in the first information report and he could not

provide the CCTV footate due to auto deletion system but all these are of

his disputed defence and he has failed to satisfy this Court for granting

any relief in favour of the petitioner.

19. Applying the above principles to the facts of the instant case, we find

that the impugned F.I.R. prima-facie discloses a commission of

cognizable offence.

20. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
his disputed defence which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction.

This Court, in writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate

the defence of the petitioner.

21. Taking into consideration the allegations contained in the impugned

F.I.R., the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and

the settled legal principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction in

matters relating to quashing of criminal proceedings as well as aforesaid

judgments, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered

opinion that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India is made out. The First Information Report discloses the prima-

facie commission of a cognizable offence. This Court does not find any

exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of its extraordinary writ

jurisdiction for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. or for issuing a direction

in the nature of Mandamus, as prayed.
                                                                                      CRLP No. 14372 of 2026
                                                                8


                                    22. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby

                                    dismissed.



                                                             (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
                                    September 29th, 2026
                                    Prajapati RK




Digitally signed by :-
RAMKESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad