HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11071 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing on behalf of the respondents no. 1 to 5. 2. No notice need be issued to the respondent no. 6 taking into consideration the nature of order proposed to be passed. 3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a mandamus commanding the respondent no. 5 not to harass and threaten to the petitioner who is 90 percent disabled person. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the threat is being extended to deposit an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/-. 4. Contention is that the authorities forcibly have required the petitioner to enter into an agreement dated 04.09.2025, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the writ petition to give an amount of Rs. 4, 00, 000/- as a settlement to a third party. 5. Further contention is that the petitioner was forced to enter into the said agreement although there is no liability of his for paying the aforesaid amount. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in this regard he has already approached the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar vide his application dated 29.10.2025, a copy of which is annexure 6 to the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sabir Ali Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Govt. Of U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) writ petition indicating the use of force and threat exerted on him in order to force him to enter into the settlement but the Superintendent of Police, Ambedkar Nagar has not taken any action in this regard till date. 7. The aforesaid argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is found to be patently fallacious inasmuch as the agreement is dated 04.09.2025 while the application which has been submitted by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Amebdkar Nagar is dated 29.10.2025 and it is not understood as to why the petitioner took two months to submit a complaint in this regard to the authorities. 8. At this stage, Sri Sabir Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to press the instant writ petition and prays that the same may be dismissed as not pressed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed. November 26, 2025 Pachhere/- CRLP No. 11071 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYENDRA SINGH PACHHERE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench