HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 15549 of 2023 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J. HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J. Heard Sri Gaurav Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goel, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Chandan Agrawal, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the chargesheet was filed in the instant case against the petitioner on 19.02.2024. The learned trial court took cognizance of the offence on 18.05.2024. Summons were issued to the petitioner on the same date by the learned trial court. These facts have been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question before us is whether the writ petition would lie after a chargesheet has been filed by the police and cognizance has been taken by the learned trial court. The aforesaid issue arose for consideration before the Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.13424 of 2025). The Supreme Court held thus:- "7. The writ petition in Neeta Singh (supra) was only under Article 226 of the Constitution, as evident from the first sentence of the relevant order. Moreover, a bare reading of paragraph 8 thereof reveals that the relevant Bench's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 had not been invoked. Further still, the last sentence of the first paragraph records that cognisance of the offence had been taken by the relevant criminal court. It is in such circumstances that we had the occasion to uphold the order under Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Tripathi, Syed Imran Ibrahim Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Vineet Vincent Pereira Alias Vineet Vincent Paresh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) challenge of the Allahabad High Court, whereby the writ petition only under Article 226 of the Constitution was held to have become infructuous by reason of subsequent events, relying on several authoritative pronouncements of this Court including Constitution Bench decisions. 8. However, from the preamble of the writ petition filed by the petitioner before the Bombay High Court, it is evident that the same sought to invoke the twin jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 528 of the BNSS for having the FIR quashed. It is true that the police report (charge-sheet) had been filed on 14th May, 2025 upon completion of investigation of the FIR, but whether or not cognizance had been taken by the jurisdictional magistrate is not too clear from the impugned order extracted above. So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was available to be exercised to quash not only the FIR/charge-sheet but also the order taking cognisance, provided the same is placed on record along with the requisite pleadings to assail the same and a strong case for such quashing is set up. Significantly, it was reasoned by us in Neeta Singh (supra) that a judicial order not being amenable to challenge before a high court under Article 226 of the Constitution and there being no prayer either under Article 227 thereof or Section 482, Cr. PC, the Allahabad High Court was right in holding the writ petition under Article 226 to have been rendered infructuous." In the wake of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni (supra) the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has become infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to avail his legal remedies against the chargesheet and the order of cognnizance before the competent court. (Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.) October 9, 2025 Shahroz CRLP No. 15549 of 2023 2 Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHAHROJ ALAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad