HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8059 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE SYED QAMAR HASAN RIZVI, J. 1. Heard Sri Harendra Singh, Advocate, who appeared in person, Sri S. M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India (respondent No. 1) and Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents No. 2 & 3. 2. The present writ petition has been filed with the following main prayer(s): "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding opposite parties particularly opposite party no. 1 to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Opposite Party No. - 4 who has misused his official capacity, (contained as Annexure No. - 3) in the interest of justice. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Opposite Party No. - 3 to register the First Information Report against Opposite Party No. - 4 for the criminal intimidation of petitioner, (contained as Annexure No. - 3) in the interest of justice." 3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has pressed his relief mainly against the respondent No. 4 who has allegedly misbehaved with him when he went to the Police Station- C.B.N., Lucknow to show the order passed by this Court in an anticipatory bail application of his client bearing Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 482 BNSS No. 1031 of 2025 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : In Person Counsel for Respondent(s) : S M Singh Royekwar, G.A. Harendra Singh .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Deputy Narcotics Commissioner Central Bureau Of Narcotics Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) (Avadhram Vs. Union of India). 4. The submission of the petitioner is that being the counsel of his client Avadhram, he had approached the respondent No. 4 on 20.08.2025 at 04:15 p.m. along with two other companion advocates where he was made to sit outside the office of the respondent No. 4 for two hours and after that only the petitioner was called in by the respondent No. 4 with the direction to keep his other companion advocates namely Sri Satish Maurya and Sri Amar Singh outside his office. 5. 5. On being asked from the petitioner as to why he had gone to the aforesaid police station when he was not obliged to go there as his client should have gone there, he could not explain properly. 6. Sri S. M. Singh Royekwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India (respondent No. 1) and Sri G. D. Bhatt, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents No. 2 & 3, on the basis of instructions, have stated that the petitioner, who is a practicing advocate, was not subjected to any ill treatment by the respondent No. 4, rather he was offered 'tea' when he was waiting for his turn to meet the Station House Officer of the aforesaid police station as the S.H.O. was busy in other work. 7. Sri S. M. Singh Royekwar and Sri G. D. Bhatt both have stated before this Court that necessary advice has been given to the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow as well as the Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Lucknow to promptly take action in the matter and do the needful on the application(s) of the petitioner dated 22.08.2025. 8. In the wake of aforesaid development, we do not find it appropriate to keep this petition pending any longer. It is expected that if there is any substance in the application(s) of the petitioner already submitted before the Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Lucknow as well as the Deputy Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Lucknow, the needful exercise would be undertaken strictly in accordance with law and the outcome of the same be intimated to the petitioner forthwith. CRLP No. 8059 of 2025 2 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is consigned to records. September 2, 2025 (Manoj K.) CRLP No. 8059 of 2025 3 (Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench