Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 15946 (ALL)

RIZWAN AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/12009/2025 · 2026-10-07

Ajay Kumar Ii, Rajeev Misra

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12009 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Case called out in revised list. 2. Even though, names of Mr. Syed Faiz Hasnain, Mr. Gufran Ahmad and Mohammad Shams are duly published in the cause list as counsel for petitioners but neither they nor anyone on their behalf is present to press the present writ petition, even in revised call. 3. Learned AGA for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 is present. 4. Petitioners-Rizwan and Smt. Hadisa have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 15.03.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Mohammad Faizan and registered as Case Crime Number 0188 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station- Majhola, District-Moradabad. 5. Present writ petition came up for admission on 06.06.2025 and this Court passed the following order;- "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the records. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 prays for and is granted two weeks' time to file counter affidavit. 3. Put up this matter on 07.07.2025 in top ten cases." 6. Upon perusal of order sheet, we find that no interim order has been passed by this Court protecting the liberty of petitioners. In all probability, the Investigating Officer must have submitted the charge sheet/police report in as much as a period of more than one year and 6 months have expired from the date of the impugned FIR. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that by efflux of time, this writ petition has been rendered infructuous. 7. It is, accordingly, dismissed as having rendered infructuous. 8. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. October 8, 2026 Vinay Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gufran Ahmad, Mohammad Shams, Syed Faiz Hasnain Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mukesh Joshi (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Rizwan And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad