Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:144317-DB Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26290 of 2025 Petitioner :- Deepak Tiwari Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.1 – State of Uttar Pradesh, through its police authorities, to register an FIR against Respondents 2 to 4 under the following provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023: • Section 316 (Cheating) • Section 316(2) (Criminal Breach of Trust) • Section 62 (Criminal Conspiracy) • Section 507 (Criminal Intimidation) • Section 61 (Attempt to frame false charge) • Section 248 (False Sexual Harassment Accusation – Pre-planned) • Section 333 & 336 (Forgery) and ensure that the investigation is conducted under court monitoring to prevent manipulation at the local level. b) Direct the Respondent No.1 – State of Uttar Pradesh to initiate appropriate penal, departmental, and monetary action against the concerned police and labour officers responsible for abuse of office, manipulation of official records, and deliberate inaction, and to recover such liability personally from the erring officers. c) Issue a writ of Certiorari to quash the orders dated 27.06.2025 and 30.06.2025 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, as arbitrary and contrary to actual proceedings. d) Direct a court-monitored SIT/CBI investigation to ensure impartial probe and secure CCTV & digital records. Though most of the stark and clear evidences are available with the Petitioner, however, a neutral agency is being requested for impartiality. e) Award compensation of ₹35,00,000/- (or as deemed fit) to be paid by the State of Uttar Pradesh for violation of the Petitioner's fundamental rights, with liberty to the State to recover the same from the erring officers and private parties. This is without prejudice to the Petitioner's right to pursue separate civil proceedings for damages against the private Respondents. The Petitioner quantifies this amount considering (i) severe mental agony, loss of peace of mind and professional reputation caused due to prolonged harassment, police intimidation, and surveillance, (ii) forced job transition, relocation due to recce and other threats, and career setbacks as prospective employers expressed reluctance due to ongoing legal proceedings, and (iii) the fact that while the private Respondents continue to derive financial benefits from the automation developed by the Petitioner (saving approx. ₹5-7 lakhs per month), the Petitioner has been forced to run from pillar to post to prove his innocence." 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was working with Sigma Slotting Corporation, a private company, as Data Analyst and his services were wrongly terminated by the Company on 26.03.2025. Subsequently, he was taken back in service but soon thereafter, the State-respondents on basis of assurance of illegal gratification (gifts) from the respondent-Company, created a situation whereby the Company again terminated his services. 4. The petitioner has alleged that he submitted a detailed representation before the Labour Commissioner but the same remained unheeded. A perusal of the pleadings reveal that the entire grievance of the petitioner pertains to termination of his services by the respondent-Company, a private entity. 5. The petitioner has made wide-ranging allegations against the State-respondents, the office of the Labour Commissioner, Human Rights Commission, his own counsel and, even, the Magistrate before whom application was filed under Section 173(4) of BNSS but was ultimately rejected on 27.06.2025 as it was not pressed. 6. It seems that the petitioner filed application for recall of the order but it was rejected on 30.06.2025 with liberty to file fresh application. The allegations, though seem to be serious, would require a factual enquiry in duly instituted proceedings. 7. As liberty has been reserved in favour of the petitioner to move fresh application, as admitted in paragraph no.6(g), we leave it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedy as may be advised. 8. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 21.8.2025 Ankit. WRIC No. 26290 of 2025 2 Digitally signed by :- ANKIT VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad