Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

NEETESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty.

Summary

Petitioner Neetesh Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 10‑08‑2026 registered under Sections 85, 115(2), 351(3)B of the BNSS and Section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The State argued that the investigation was complete, a charge‑sheet had been filed on 24‑08‑2026 under Section 193(3) BNSS, and that the proper remedy for the petitioner was an application under Section 528 BNSS before the magistrate, not a writ. The petitioner could not rebut this contention and sought dismissal of the writ as withdrawn. The respondents had no objection to this prayer. The Court held that the writ petition could not be entertained and dismissed it as withdrawn with liberty, vacating any interim order previously granted.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court may interfere with an FIR and charge‑sheet through a criminal miscellaneous writ petition.
  • Whether the petitioner should approach the magistrate under Section 528 BNSS instead of seeking writ relief.
  • Whether the writ petition should be dismissed as withdrawn.

Legislation cited

Subjects

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

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22542 of 2026

Neetesh Kumar
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Kamlesh Kumar, Rajesh Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Kamlesh Kumar the learned counsel for petitioner and the
learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 and 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Neetesh Kumar has approached this Court by means of
present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the impugned F.I.R.
dated 10.08.2026 lodged by first informant/respondent-3, Smt. Laxmi and
registered as Case Crime No. 178 of 2026 under Sections 85, 115(2), 351
(3)BNS and Section 4 D. P. Act, Police Station-Ekdil, District-Etawah.

4. 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 24.08.2026 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 petitioner 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.
                                                                                            CRLP No. 22542 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner 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.

                                    6. Learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 and 2 has no
                                    objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for
                                    petitioner.

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

                                    8 Having heard the learned the learned counsel for petitioner, 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.

                                    9. 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


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.