HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14372 of 2026 Reserved Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. (Per Hon’ble Tarun Saxena, J.) 1. The instant writ petition has been filed with the following main reliefs: "I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned first information report dated 254.04.2026 lodged by respondent no.3 in Case Crime No. 166 of 2026, U/s 103(1) & 238 of BNS, 2023, Police Station Sector 63 Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar, U.P. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of impugned first information report dated 24.04.2026 lodged by respondent no.3 in Case Crime No. 166 of 2026, U/s 103(1) & 238 of BNS, Police Station Sector 63 Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar,U.P. " 2. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ajay Singh Yadav and Mr. Sandeep Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned AGA-I appearing on Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Singh Yadav, Rajrshi Gupta, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Vivek Singh Gajji Yadav @ Gajendra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) behalf of the State-respondents and Mr. Vivek Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 3. 3. In nutshell, the prosecution case is that the Informant- Resham Yadav, wife of Malu Ram Yadav, resident of Village Bahlolpur, Police Station Sector-63, Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, has lodged a First Information Report on 24.04.2026 stating therein that on 04.03.2026, at approximately 02:00 p.m., her husband Malu Ram Yadav, aged 56 years, left the house to play Holi. Later on the same day, at about 05:40 p.m., her son Satyavan Yadav received a phone call from his father's mobile number. The caller introduced himself as the In-charge of Police Outpost Bahlolpur and informed her son that his father Malu Ram Yadav, was lying intoxicated on the roadside near the service road outside Radha Krishna Temple, Village Bahlolpur, Noida. Upon receiving this information, her son, immediately rushed to the spot and found his father in an unconscious condition. He then, brought him home back. And on the advice of neighbours, they took him to the Kailash Hospital, where the doctors declared him brought dead. Thereafter, the family performed his last rites. On the following day, one of the neighbour Jile Singh, son of Mahesh Yadav, resident of Bahlolpur, informed them that on 04.03.2026 at about 02:07 p.m., he had seen her husband entering the office of Gajji Yadav, Shivraj Yadav, and Godhan Pehalwan, all sons of Rajendra Yadav, residents of Bahlolpur. Subsequently, her son Satyavan Yadav, visited the office of Godhan Pehalwan and Gajji Yadav to inquire about his father and to view the CCTV footage. However, Godhan Pehalwan neither disclosed any information regarding her husband nor allowed her son to view the footage installed Closed-Circuit TV Camera in his office. Thereafter, her son viewed the CCTV footage from the office of one CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 2 Umesh Yadav, son of Salek Yadav, whose office is situated adjacent to that of Godhan Pehalwan. The footage clearly shows that on 04.03.2026, at about 02:00 p,m., her husband entered Godhan Pehalwan's office. However, he was not seen returning out of that office until approximately 05:00 p.m. Her son possesses a copy of the said CCTV footage and the same will be produced as and when required. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. The petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the alleged incident is said to have taken place on 04.03.2026, but the first information report of the said incident has been lodged on 24.04.2026. It is further submitted that the first information report has been lodged after due deliberations and consultations and the prosecution has failed to offer any explanation regarding inordinate delay caused in lodging the first information report. He further submits that the death of the informant’s husband occurred due to excessive consumption of liquor. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that soon after the incident, neither the informant nor her son ever contacted the petitioner, regarding CCTV footage, on the same day, and on account of the auto deletion system, the CCTV footage of 04.03.2026 has been deleted. Therefore, it could not be possible for the petitioner to provide the said CCTV footage to the informant after a lapse of 27 days. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the husband of the informant died on account of excessive consumption of liquor, but false and fictitious allegations have been made against the petitioner and his other family members regarding the death of Malu Ram Yadav. He CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 3 further submits that the first information report has been lodged on an application moved by the informant under Section 173(4) of the B.N.S.S. before the court concerned. 7. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that vide order dated 30.04.2026 passed by the learned trial court, the co-accused Shivraj Yadav has been granted bail in Case Crime No. 166 of 2026, under Sections 103(1) and 238 B.N.S., P.S. Sector-63, Noida, District Gautambudh Nagar. 8. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioner has criminal history of one Case Crime No. 148 of 2019, under Sections 147, 148, 323, 504, 506, 307 I.P.C., P.S. Phase-3, District Gautambudh Nagar, in which the petitioner has already been granted bail. 9. Lastly, it has been argued that since there exists no medical examination report or postmortem examination report of the deceased, therefore, in absence of any forensic or scientific evidence proving the death of the deceased to be a homicidal one, it cannot be said that the petitioner along with other co-accused has committed the murder of the deceased. 10. Learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State-respondents as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.3 have opposed the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that the first information report contains serious allegations against the petitioner. The present petitioner along with one co-accused Godhan Yadav, has deliberately deleted the CCTV footage from their cameras, from which it can be easily presumed that the petitioner was actually involved in the commission of the alleged offence. 11. Learned A.G.A. further submits that although the husband of the CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 4 informant was seen entering into the office of petitioner, but his return was not seen in the CCTV footage of the camera installed at the office of one Mr. Umesh Kumar. Therefore, it is clear that the husband of informant, namely, Malu Ram Yadav was present in the office of petitioner on the date and time as alleged in the first information report, but his return from there is in suspense. 12. Learned A.G.A. further argued that the petitioner is named in the first information report and as per the contents of the first information report and other evidence available on record, prima facie, cognizable offence is made out against the petitioner. And therefore, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. Legal Analysis 14. The Article 226 of the Constitution of India confers wide powers to the High Courts to entertain a writ petition, but it is a discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The power to quash an F.I.R., however, is incisively governed by Section 528 B.N.S.S., which preserves the inherent power of the High Court. 15. The Supreme Court has, time and again, cautioned against the quashing of the F.I.R.s in writ jurisdiction. The law on the subject is crystallized as under:- (A) In State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, the Supreme Court laid down seven categories where F.I.R. can be quashed. The Court also warned that power must be exercised sparingly and only in “rarest of rare cases”. (B) In the case of M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 5 Maharashtra and others, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 315, the Supreme Court, in paragraph no. 80, has held as under:- “The High Court should not entertain writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the F.I.R., except in exceptional circumstances…..The inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is the appropriate remedy…..Writ Court should not act as an investigating agency or trial court.” (C) In the case of Ms. Skoda Auto Volkswagen India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P., (2021) 5 SCC 795, the Supreme Court reiterated that the High Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, should not examine the reliability, genuineness or otherwise of allegations contained in the F.I.R. 16. The rationale behind this consistent view is threefold:- (a) Investigation is at a nascent stage: After lodging of an F.I.R., the investigating officer has to investigate the matter……..Quashing of an F.I.R. at the threshold would scuttle a legitimate investigation. (b) Disputed questions of fact: The Writ Court under Article 226 does not adjudicate disputed facts, defence of accused, or a plea of alibi. These are matter of trial. (c) Alternative efficacious remedy: Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. is a statutory remedy and where a statute provides specific remedy, writ jurisdiction is normally not invoked. 17. The exception carved out is limited. A writ for quashing may lies only where (i) the F.I.R., on its bare reading, does not disclose the commission of any cognizable offence; (ii) the F.I.R. has been lodged alleging a non cognizable offence without permission of the Magistrate under Section 174 of the B.N.S.S., or: (iii) there is a gross violation of fundamental rights apparent on record. CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 6 18. Now, from the plain reading of the impugned first information report of the instant case, it is evident that it carries serious allegations of committing murder of the husband of respondent no. 3 against the petitioner, who is named in the first information report. Although learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner has not committed any offence as alleged in the first information report and he could not provide the CCTV footate due to auto deletion system but all these are of his disputed defence and he has failed to satisfy this Court for granting any relief in favour of the petitioner. 19. Applying the above principles to the facts of the instant case, we find that the impugned F.I.R. prima-facie discloses a commission of cognizable offence. 20. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner are his disputed defence which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. This Court, in writ jurisdiction, cannot conduct a mini-trial or appreciate the defence of the petitioner. 21. Taking into consideration the allegations contained in the impugned F.I.R., the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, and the settled legal principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction in matters relating to quashing of criminal proceedings as well as aforesaid judgments, as discussed in foregoing paragraphs, we are of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. The First Information Report discloses the prima- facie commission of a cognizable offence. This Court does not find any exceptional circumstance warranting exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction for quashing of the impugned F.I.R. or for issuing a direction in the nature of Mandamus, as prayed. CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 7 22. Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. September 29th, 2026 Prajapati RK CRLP No. 14372 of 2026 8 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMKESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad