Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 62920 (ALL)

JAI PRAKASH DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

WRIC/16964/2025 · 2025-05-25

Avnish Saxena, Saurabh Dwivedi Registrar J Cpc

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89396-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16964 of 2025 Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rijwan Ali Akhtar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Mr. Rijwan Ali Akhtar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, private respondent no.8 is making reckless and wrongful allegations against his client, including lodging false complaint with the police. His client had made, inter alia, application dated 4th January, 2025 to Deputy Commissioner Police (City) Commissionerate, Prayagraj seeking conduct of enquiry. He wants direction for issuance of notice against said respondent. 2. Mr. Devansh Rathore, learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State and submits, the writ petition is not maintainable. Petitioner might file remedy elsewhere. 3. We, by our order dated 7th May, 2025, had dismissed petitioner's earlier writ petition (Writ C No.- 11102 of 2025) with liberty to file afresh. Text of the order is reproduced below. "Mr. Rijwan Ali Akhtar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client is duly running the college but the Police are unnecessarily calling his client to the Thana at instance of frivolous complaint made by private respondent no.8. On query Mr. Akhtar submits, the Police made oral summons over telephone. There has been omission to make the statement in the petition. He seeks leave for his client to not prosecute the writ petition and leave to file afresh with better particulars. Mr. Anubhav Chandra, learned advocate, Standing Counsel appears on behalf of State. The petition has not yet been moved. In view of above said, it is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to file fresh, with better particulars, on same cause of action." 4. On query Mr. Akhtar submits, his client was summoned to the police station but he did not go to the station. It thus is merely an allegation. However, we are confident that in event the police require petitioner's assistance regarding investigation and enquiry pursuant to FIR registered, proper notice will be issued under section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suarksha Sanhita (B.N.S.S.), 2023. 5. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Mohini (Arindam Sinha, J.) (Avnish Saxena, J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHINI RAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad