HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21439 of 2025 Court No. - 42 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jai Narain, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing on behalf of the State. 2. Considering the allegations in the impugned First Information Report ('FIR' for short), we are prima facie of opinion that cognisable offences are made out, where the accused are said to have congregated in a public place and were oddly misbehaving with the public, upon which, the Police reached and attempted to stop them. This led the accused to manhandle a constable. Later on, realising that they were policemen, one of the co-accused boarded their car and, in order to make good their escape, ran over one of the Head Constables, who has sustained serious injuries. The car was, however, stopped by the public, where, out of the four offenders, two escaped. 3. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's name, who is shown to be one of the accused who had escaped from the car, has figured in the statement of the co-accused, and it is on that basis alone that he has been connected with the crime. The submission is that the entire allegations in the FIR are false and hollow. The petitioner, according to the learned Counsel appearing for him, is a Advocate practicing in the District Court. It is argued that he had gone to Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitdendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Nitin alias Nitin Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and others .....Respondent(s) the place, where the incident happened, to advise some client and come away. All what is subject matter of the FIR had happened later on. He has been implicated by the Police due to animosity displayed by them towards members of the Bar these days. 4. What the petitioner argues may be true, but then, this is a disputed defense, which we cannot scrutinise in the exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not a case, where the implication is so glaringly false and incredible that we may feel inclined to interfere in order to prevent abuse of the process of criminal law. 5. In the totality of circumstances, no case for interference is made out. 6. In the result, this writ petition fails and stands dismissed, summarily. September 22, 2025 I. Batabyal CRLP No. 21439 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISHAN BATABYAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad