HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9958 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J. HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J. 1. Heard Sri Upendra Prakash Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State/ opposite parties and Sri Pradeep Kumar, learned counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite party No.4/complainant and filed Vakalatnama on her behalf. The same is taken on record. 2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that he may be permitted to delete the name of opposite party No.4 in the array of opposite parties and in place of her name, Mrs. X/ Complainant of the F.I.R. No.0450 of 2025 may be permitted to be indicated in the memo of writ petition. 3. Considering the aforesaid request, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the name of the prosecutrix from the array of opposite parties and in her place the name of Mrs. X/ Complainant of the F.I.R. No.0450 of 2025 be indicated in the memo of writ petition, during the course of day. 4. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) dated 06.10.2025 bearing F.I.R./ Case Crime No.450 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 74, 115(2), 351(3) & 352 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya, which is contained as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. 5. Ms. Meera Tripathi, learned Additional Government Advocate has Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Upendra Prakash Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Lalji Tiwari .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) produced a copy of instructions letter dated 28.10.2025 provided by Ms. Sunita Tiwari, Sub-Inspector, Police Station-Raunahi, District-Ayodhya addressing to the learned Government Advocate, High Court, Lucknow. The same is taken on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story so narrated in the impugned F.I.R. 7. However, after arguing the matter at some length, learned counsel for the petitioner has requested that he may be permitted to not press this writ petition, hence, the same may be dismissed as such. 8. Considering the aforesaid request of learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to not press this writ petition. 9. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed being not pressed. November12,2025 Suresh/ CRLP No. 9958 of 2025 2 (Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary,J.) (Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench