Allahabad High Court
AMBIKA RUGHTA AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty, as the appropriate remedy lies under Sections 528 and 210 of the BNSS and no writ interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioners Ambika Rughta and four others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 24‑08‑2026 registered under several sections of the BNSS and the D.P. Act. An inadvertent error duplicated petitioner‑3’s name in the cause title, and the court allowed amendment of the title. The State, through the A.G.A., informed the court that a charge sheet had already been filed under Section 193(3) BNSS and that the proper remedy for the petitioners was an application under Section 528 BNSS and a challenge to the magistrate’s cognizance order under Section 210 BNSS, not a writ. Petitioners could not overcome this objection and sought dismissal of the writ as withdrawn. The court, agreeing with the State, refused the prayer and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty, vacating any earlier interim orders.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the FIR and charge sheet through a writ petition.
- Whether the appropriate remedy for challenging the charge sheet is an application under Section 528 BNSS and a challenge under Section 210 BNSS.
- Whether the amendment of the cause title due to duplication is permissible.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- FIR
- charge sheet
- amendment of cause title
- jurisdiction
- Section 528 BNSS
- criminal procedure
- withdrawn petition
- interim order vacated
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22537 of 2026
Ambika Rughta And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tariq Maqbool Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Tariq Maqbool Khan, the learned counsel for petitioners and
the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 and 2.
2. Perused the record.
3. At the very outset, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that due
to inadvertence an inadvertent error has crept in the present writ petition.
Resultantly, petitioner- 3 has been arrayed twice in the cause title of the
writ petition as well as stay application. On the above premise, the learned
counsel for petitioners submits that he be permitted to amend the cause
title of the writ petition as well stay application.
4. Prayer mater by the learned counsel for petitioners is bonafied. Same is
not opposed by the learned A.G.A.. It is accordingly allowed.
5. Let necessary amendment in the cause title of the stay application/writ
petition be carried out by the learned counsel for the parties during course
of the day.
6. Petitioners-Ambika Rughta And 4 Others have approached this Court
by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the
impugned F.I.R. dated 24.08.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent-3,
Rupa Gupta and registered as Case Crime No. 0701 of 2026 under
Sections 85, 111(2), 351 (1), 352 BNS and Section 3/4 D. P. Act, Police
Station-Gulariya, District-Gorakhpur.
CRLP No. 22537 of 2026
2
7. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing
State/respondents 1 and 2 submits that during pendency of present writ
petition, Investigating Officer upon completion of statutory investigation
of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XIII BNSS, has
already forwarded the charge sheet/ police report dated 11.09.2026 as
contemplated under Section 193 (3) BNSS. On the above premise, it thus
contended by the learned A.G.A. that in view of above, now 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. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no interference is
warranted by this court in present writ petition.
8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could
not overcome the same. He, however, submits that in view of the
objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to instant writ
petition, the present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty
aforesaid.
9. Learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 and 2 has no
objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for
petitioner
10. In view of above, the prayer prayed for by means of present writ
petition is hereby refused.
11. Having heard the learned the learned counsel for petitioners, the
A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1and 2, upon perusal of record and
considering the rival submissions urged by the learned counsel for the
parties, as noted herein above, the instant writ petition shall stand
dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid.
12. Interim order, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
September 18, 2026
YK
Digitally signed by :-
YASHWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…