Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

GUFRAN ALI AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to file an application under Section 528 BNSS.

Summary

Petitioners Gufran Ali and five others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 01.06.2026 and the subsequent charge sheet filed under various IPC sections. The State, represented by the Advocate General, informed the Court that the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, directing the petitioners to seek relief under Section 528 BNSS to contest the charge sheet and the magistrate's cognizance order. Petitioners agreed to withdraw the writ and instead pursue the remedy under Section 528 BNSS. The Court, noting the State's lack of objection, refused the relief sought in the writ petition and dismissed it as withdrawn, vacating any interim order. The judgment emphasizes that challenges to FIRs and charge sheets should be made through the specific statutory provision rather than a writ petition.

Issues considered

  • Whether a criminal miscellaneous writ petition is the appropriate remedy to challenge an FIR and charge sheet.
  • Whether the petitioners should instead file an application under Section 528 BNSS to contest the charge sheet and cognizance order.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal procedure
  • writ petition
  • FIR
  • charge sheet
  • Section 528
  • jurisdiction
  • dismissal

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21623 of 2026

Gufran Ali And 5 Others
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Pulkit Kumar       Srivastava,    Vishesh
                                 Rajvanshi
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Vishesh Rajvanshi, the learned counsel for petitioners and
the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Gufran Ali and 5 Others have approached this Court by
means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated
01.06.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Shiv Das Patel and
registered as Case Crime No. 336 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 352,
351(2), 346 BNS, Police Station-Ali Nagar, District-Chandauli.

4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents
1, 2 & 3 submits that during pendency of present criminal misc. writ
petition, Investigating Officer, upon completion of statutory investigation
of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XIII BNSS has
forwarded the charge sheet/police report dated 24.06.2026 as
contemplated under Section 193(3) BNSS. In view of above, the learned
A.G.A. submits that remedy lies to petitioners to approach this Court by
means of an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging
aforementioned charge sheet/police report as well as the cognizance
taking order/summoning order to be passed by the Jurisdictional
Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 210 BNSS.

5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly
                                                                                          CRLP No. 21623 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    submits that in view of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A.,
                                    present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to petitioners
                                    to file an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging
                                    aforementioned charge sheet/police report as well as the cognizance
                                    taking order/summoning order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate.

                                    6. Learned A.G.A. for State-respondents has no objection to the aforesaid
                                    prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioners.

                                    7. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ
                                    petition is, hereby, refused.

                                    8. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for
                                    State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 and considering the rival submissions as noted
                                    above, this writ petition shall stand dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
                                    aforesaid.

                                    9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                    September 16, 2026
                                    Vinay

                                                                    (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
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.