DR MAN SINGH YADAVversusSTATE OF UP AND 11 OTHERS

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21380 of 2026

Dr Man Singh Yadav
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                      Versus

State Of Up And 11 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Mohabbat Bi, Qamar Ali Jafri, Sr.
                                    Advocate, Vineet Vikram
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : A.S.G.I., G.A., Tushar Kant

Court No. - 46
                    HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
                    HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard Mr. Vineet Vikram, the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr.
Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Roopak Chaubey, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 to
8 and Mr. Tushar Kant, the learned counsel representing respondent-9.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner-Dr Man Singh Yadav has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition with the following prayer:-

"PRAYER

It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased
to allow the petition and issue:

Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the
Respondents No. 4,5 and 6 to conduct a time bound, fair, and technically
compliant investigation in Case Crime No. 21 of 2026 under section 336(4) of
BNS and 66, 66D, 67, 74 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008,
Police Station Cyber Crime, District Prayagraj, utilizing advanced cyber-
forensics to track the originators.

Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the
respondent no.1, 2 and 3 to take effective, prompt and coordinated measures
investigating and prosecuting the misuse of Artificial Intelligence for preventing,
detecting, (Al), deepfake technology relating to the victims of the impugned first
information report.

III. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction directing the respondent cyber authorities
to ensure immediate identification, preservation, removal/blacking and
                                                           CRLP No. 21380 of 2026
                                  2


prevention of further circulation, and to take action against the perpetrators of
the impugned FIR in accordance with law.

IV. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction commanding Meta Platforms Inc, X Corp
and Google (Respondents 10, 11 and 12) to immediately comply with the IT
Rules, 2021 (as amended), by terminating/blocking the rogue accounts and
turning over all IP logs and smitglber details to the Investigating Officer of the
imponed first information report.

V. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction directing the Respondent no. 1 to formulate
structural guidelines/directives to establish dedicated institutional cells that
actively monitor, label, and check Al-generated fake news and deepfakes to
ensure public peace is maintained.

VI. Issue any other or further Writ, Order or Direction which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

VII. To award the cost of Writ Petition"

4. On the matter being taken up, Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned
Additional Advocate General representing State/respondents 1 to 8
submits that during pendency of present writ petition, Investing Officer,
upon completion of statutory investigation of Case Crime No 21 of 2026
under section 336(4) of BNS and 66, 66D, 67, 74 of Information
Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, District
Prayagraj arising out of F.I.R. dated 03.03.2026 in terms of Chapter XIII
BNSS has submitted the requisite police report as contemplated under
Section 193 (3) BNSS before court concerned today itself. He further
submits that he has received instructions that the jurisdictional Magistrate
has taken cognizance upon aforementioned charge sheet/police report. In
view of above, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that no
cause of action now survives with petitioner to maintain the present writ
petition. As such present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having
rendered infructuous.

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

6. Having heard the the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Manish Goyal,
the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Roopak
Chaubey, the learned counsel representing State/respondents 1 to 8 and
Mr. Tushar Kant, the learned counsel representing respondent-9, upon
                                                                                         CRLP No. 21380 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    perusal of record and considering the objection raised by the learned
                                    Additional Advocate General in opposition to present writ petition, as
                                    noted herein above and also the law laid down by Apex Court in
                                    Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and another
                                    2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, we find that no cause of action now
                                    survives with petitioner to maintain the writ petition. As such, present
                                    writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

                                    7. Accordingly, the present writ petition shall stand dismissed as having
                                    rendered infructuous.

                                    8. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.



                                                                    (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
                                    September 28, 2026
                                    YK




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