Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

PARAMJEET AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court declined to quash the FIR and disposed of the writ petition, allowing the petitioners to pursue other legal remedies.

Summary

The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking the quashing of an FIR. During the hearing, they informed the court that they no longer wished to pursue the quashing relief. Consequently, the court declined the request to quash the FIR. The petitioners then asked for leave to approach a competent court for anticipatory bail and other legal remedies. The court disposed of the writ petition, observing that the petitioners are free to avail themselves of other remedies as advised.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can grant relief for quashing the FIR in the writ petition
  • Whether the petitioners may be permitted to seek anticipatory bail and other remedies through the writ

Subjects

  • criminal procedure
  • FIR
  • quashing of FIR
  • anticipatory bail
  • writ petition
  • legal remedies
  • High Court

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                               CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22492 of 2026

                                    Paramjeet And Another
                                                                                          .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                    Versus

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

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)            :   Devendra Pratap Yadav
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)            :   G.A.

                                    Court No. - 49
                                                     HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
                                                     HON'BLE DIVESH CHANDRA SAMANT, J.

                                    After some arguments, Shri Devendra Pratap Yadav, learned
                                    counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not
                                    wish to press the relief for quashing of the F.I.R. in the writ
                                    petition.

                                    The relief sought for quashing of the F.I.R. is accordingly
                                    declined.

                                    Shri Devendra Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner
                                    recasts his relief and prays that the petitioner may be granted
                                    leave to approach the competent court for anticipatory bail and
                                    for seeking other available legal remedies.

                                    The writ petition is disposed of with the observation that it is
                                    open to the petitioner to avail other legal remedies as may be
                                    advised.


                                                             (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)
                                    September 24, 2026
                                    Vandit




Digitally signed by :-
VANDIT AGRAWAL
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.