HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21380 of 2026 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. Vineet Vikram, the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Roopak Chaubey, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1 to 8 and Mr. Tushar Kant, the learned counsel representing respondent-9. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner-Dr Man Singh Yadav has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition with the following prayer:- "PRAYER It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to allow the petition and issue: Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the Respondents No. 4,5 and 6 to conduct a time bound, fair, and technically compliant investigation in Case Crime No. 21 of 2026 under section 336(4) of BNS and 66, 66D, 67, 74 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Prayagraj, utilizing advanced cyber- forensics to track the originators. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no.1, 2 and 3 to take effective, prompt and coordinated measures investigating and prosecuting the misuse of Artificial Intelligence for preventing, detecting, (Al), deepfake technology relating to the victims of the impugned first information report. III. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction directing the respondent cyber authorities to ensure immediate identification, preservation, removal/blacking and Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohabbat Bi, Qamar Ali Jafri, Sr. Advocate, Vineet Vikram Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., G.A., Tushar Kant Dr Man Singh Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 11 Others .....Respondent(s) prevention of further circulation, and to take action against the perpetrators of the impugned FIR in accordance with law. IV. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction commanding Meta Platforms Inc, X Corp and Google (Respondents 10, 11 and 12) to immediately comply with the IT Rules, 2021 (as amended), by terminating/blocking the rogue accounts and turning over all IP logs and smitglber details to the Investigating Officer of the imponed first information report. V. Issue a Writ, Order, or Direction directing the Respondent no. 1 to formulate structural guidelines/directives to establish dedicated institutional cells that actively monitor, label, and check Al-generated fake news and deepfakes to ensure public peace is maintained. VI. Issue any other or further Writ, Order or Direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. VII. To award the cost of Writ Petition" 4. On the matter being taken up, Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General representing State/respondents 1 to 8 submits that during pendency of present writ petition, Investing Officer, upon completion of statutory investigation of Case Crime No 21 of 2026 under section 336(4) of BNS and 66, 66D, 67, 74 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act 2008, Police Station Cyber Crime, District Prayagraj arising out of F.I.R. dated 03.03.2026 in terms of Chapter XIII BNSS has submitted the requisite police report as contemplated under Section 193 (3) BNSS before court concerned today itself. He further submits that he has received instructions that the jurisdictional Magistrate has taken cognizance upon aforementioned charge sheet/police report. In view of above, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that no cause of action now survives with petitioner to maintain the present writ petition. As such present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous. 5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same. 6. Having heard the the learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Manish Goyal, the learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Roopak Chaubey, the learned counsel representing State/respondents 1 to 8 and Mr. Tushar Kant, the learned counsel representing respondent-9, upon CRLP No. 21380 of 2026 2 perusal of record and considering the objection raised by the learned Additional Advocate General in opposition to present writ petition, as noted herein above and also the law laid down by Apex Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948, we find that no cause of action now survives with petitioner to maintain the writ petition. As such, present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition shall stand dismissed as having rendered infructuous. 8. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. September 28, 2026 YK CRLP No. 21380 of 2026 3 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- YASHWANT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad