Allahabad High Court
HARIHAR PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that, since the investigation was completed, a charge sheet filed, and cognizance taken, the writ petition for mandamus could not be entertained.
Summary
Harihar Prasad filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to order further investigation after his application on 5 January 2026. No counsel appeared for the petitioner, while the State's learned Additional Government Advocate informed the court that the statutory investigation had been completed, a charge sheet was filed, and cognizance was taken by the trial court on 18 June 2026. The court considered the petitioner's non‑appearance and the fact that the investigation was already concluded. It held that there was no basis to keep the writ petition pending and directed the petitioner to pursue any grievance through the appropriate legal channels. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a petitioner seeks a mandamus for further criminal investigation after a charge sheet has been filed and cognizance taken?
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- criminal investigation
- charge sheet
- cognizance
- non‑appearance
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21238 of 2026
Harihar Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner even in the revised call to
address the Court whereas Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned AGA appearing
for the State-respondent is present.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus
commanding the respondent no.2 to pass an appropriate order for further
investigation upon application moved by petitioner before him on
05.01.2026 (Annexure no.5 to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents submitted and
apprised the Court that after completion of the statutory investigation, the
Investigating Officer has submitted charge sheet before the court
concerned and thereupon cognizance has already been taken by the court
concerned on 18.06.2026. It is further submitted that if the petitioner has
any grievance regarding the investigation, he may take appropriate steps
in accordance with law
4. Heard learned AGA appearing for the State-respondents and perused
the record.
5. Taking into consideration the statement given by the learned AGA as
CRLP No. 21238 of 2026
2
well as none appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
taking into consideration the fact that after investigation charge sheet has
been submitted and thereupon cognizance has already been taken by the
court concerned on 18.06.2026, therefore, we do not find any reason to
keep the writ petition for further adjudication. However, in case, the
petitioner has any grievance regarding the investigation, he may take
appropriate steps in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty aforesaid.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
September 21, 2026
Prajapati RK
Digitally signed by :-
RAMKESH PRAJAPATI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…