Allahabad High Court
DINESH CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous because no cause of action remains after the investigation report was filed.
Summary
Petitioner Dinesh Chandra filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to conduct a fair and impartial investigation into Crime No. 130 of 2026. The petitioner alleged that the investigation had not been conducted properly and requested a time‑bound inquiry. The State, represented by the Advocate General, submitted that the investigating officer had already completed the statutory investigation and forwarded the police report on 23‑08‑2026 under Section 193(3) of the BNSS, thereby extinguishing any cause of action. The Court examined the record and accepted the State's submission, finding that no live grievance remained for the petitioner. Consequently, the writ petition was held to be infructuous and was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus is maintainable when the investigation has already been completed and a police report filed.
- Whether any cause of action subsists in favor of the petitioner after the submission of the investigation report.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 110, 190, 191(2), 191(3), 193(3), 351(2)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- criminal investigation
- infructuous
- cause of action
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22538 of 2026
Dinesh Chandra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dewendra Singh, Vivek Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 46
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Case called out in revised list.
2. Even though the names of Mr. Dewendra Singh and Mr. Vivek Upadhyay
are duly published in the cause list as counsel for petitioner but neither they
nor anyone on their behalf is present to press this writ petition even in
revised call.
3. Learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 is present.
4. Petitioner-Dinesh Chandra has approached this Court by means of present
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition for a writ of mandamus commanding
respondents 2 and 3 to conduct fair and impartial investigation of Case
Crime No. 130 of 2026, under Sections 191 (2), 191 (3), 190, 110, 351 (2)
BNS, Police Station-Fariha, District-Firozabad arising out of F.I.R. dated
10.07.2026, expeditiously preferably within a time bound period.
5. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing
State/respondents 1, 2 and 3 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
forwarded the police report dated 23.08.2026 in terms of Section 193 (3)
BNSS. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that no
cause of action now survives with petitioner to press this writ petition any
further. 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
over come the same.
CRLP No. 22538 of 2026
2
6. Having heard the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents 1, 2 and 3 and
upon perusal of record, we find that in view of the objection raised by the
learned A.G.A. in opposition to this writ petition as noted herein above, no
cause of action now survives with petitioner to maintain the writ petition any
further.
7. As a result, present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed as
having rendered infructuous.
8. It is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
9. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated.
September 18, 2026
YK
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
YASHWANT KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…