HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16914 of 2025 Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos.2 and 3 to conduct the fair, effective and impartial investigation in Case Crime No. 0289 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station - Handia, District - Prayagraj. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the offence was occurred on 23.05.2024 at 8.00 a.m. when the petitioner- informant was equaling the soil at his door, respondent no.4 came and used abusive languages. When he raised objection then respondent nos.4 to 7 started beating and caused injuries on the head and other parts of the body. The petitioner-informant lodged the F.I.R. on the next day on 24.05.2025 at 7.41 p.m. against respondent nos.4 to 7 and on the said complaint, the F.I.R. was lodged bearing Case Crime No. 0289 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station - Handia, District - Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that after lodging the F.I.R. the police has not arrested any accused person. It is further submitted that the police has not investigated properly and fairly. It is also submitted that the investigation has not been completed and the charge sheet has also not been filed yet. It is vehemently submitted that the investigating agency may be directed to conduct the fair and proper investigation in the said case and to file charge sheet at the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sakshi Patel, Shiv Naresh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mahendra Kumar Pal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) earliest. 4. Per contra, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the petitioner herein has measurably failed to make out any case for invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction for issuance of mandamus to direct the police authorities to investigate the matter fairly and properly. It is further submitted that there is no material on record to show that the police has failed to discharge their duties. The investigation is still going on and charge sheet shall be filed in near future. It is also submitted that all the allegations made in the F.I.R. under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. are punishable for less than seven years, therefore, as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, arrest is not required without giving notice. 5. Learned AGA further submitted that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and material on record, the instant writ petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law and deserves to be dismissed. 6. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Sri S.K. Ojha, learned AGA appearing on behalf of the State and perused the material on record. 7. We have perused the case diary which is placed before this Court. The police has taken statement of all the relevant witnesses including the injured persons. We have also perused the statement of injured persons, which is quoted as below:- "बयान वादी मुकदमा ........ वादी मुकदमा श्री महेन्द्र कु मार पाल पुत्र के दारनाथ पाल िनवासी जगदीशपुर थाना हिण्डया जनपद प्रयागराज पूछने पर अपने द्वारा पंजीकृ त मुकदमा उपरोक्त का समथर्न करते हये बयान कर रहे है िक साहब िटनांक 23/5/2025 को सुबह समय करीब 8 बजे मै अपने समतल दरवाजे पर िमट्टी कर रहा था की इतने में िवपक्षीगण राम िशरोमिण पुत्र माता जतन पाल व मिनराज पाल पुत्र राम िशरोमिण व िमथीलेश पाल पुत्र रािजत राम पाल व पुिनत पाल पुत्र राजीत राम पाल िनवासीगण जगदीशपुर थाना हंिडया प्रयागराज मुझे गाली गुप्ता देते हुये कहने लगे िक िमट्टी मत समतल करो तो मैने कहा िक मैं अपने दरवाजे पर माटी समतल कर रहा हूं आप लोगों से क्या मतलब है, इसी बात को लेकर उपरोक्त लोगों ने मुझे लाठी व डंडा से मारने पीटने लगे तभी अगल बगल के लोग शोर गुल सुन सुनकर आने लगे तो िवपक्षीगण ने जान से मारने की धमकी देते हुये चले गये। मार पीट से मेरे सर पर और हाथ में चोटे आ गई थी तो मैं िफर हिण्डया थाने गया जहाँ मेरा पहले डाक्टरी परीक्षण कराया गया िफर बाद मे मैने प्राथर्ना पत्र देकर मुकदमा दजर् कराया। यही मेरा बयान है।" CRLP No. 16914 of 2025 2 8. After plain reading of F.I.R. and considering the submissions made by the parties, this Court finds that the investigation is being conducted in accordance with law and there is no apparent bias or mala fides as well as law is settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, that the Court may only invoke extra-ordinary jurisdiction for quashing of F.I.R. in rarest of rare cases. 9. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate any specific irregularity or illegality in the investigation that would warrant interference by this Court. Part investigation is ongoing and the Court is of the view that it would be inappropriate to interfere with the investigation at this stage. 10. Taking into consideration the above-said submissions and observations and settled law as above, we do not find any merit in the instant writ petition for invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction for issuance of mandamus as prayed in the instant writ petition. 11. The writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. October 8, 2025 Atul CRLP No. 16914 of 2025 3 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad