HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10763 of 2026 Court No. - 49 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sunil Chaudhary, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 & 2. 2. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner- Anil Kumar has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 16.09.2018 lodged by first informant-respondent 3- Subhash Chandra and registered as Case Crime No. 0988 of 2018, under Sections 420, 406, 120-B IPC, P.S.- Ghaziabad Kotwali, District- Ghaziabad. 4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. representing State- respondents 1 & 2 has raised a preliminary objection by contending that since petitioner is not named in the FIR, therefore, the present writ petition on behalf of petitioner is not maintainable. As such, the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of maintainability. To buttress his submission, he has relied upon the judgement/order of Supreme Court dated 07.02.2022 passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 762 of 2020 (Hukum Chand Garg and Another Vs. The State of U.P. and Others) as well as the Division Bench judgments of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6048 of 2025 (Imran Khan Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) decided on 02.04.2025 and Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 7347 of 2025 (Prema Devi and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) decided on 17.04.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sunil Chaudhary Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Anil Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. It is then contended by the learned AGA that present writ petition has been filed after an expiry of a period of more than 7 years from the date of the impugned FIR. As such, the present writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay, negligence/laches. Even though there is clearly laches and negligence in filing the present writ petition, however, the same has not been sufficiently explained. Since the delay, laches or negligence in filing the present writ petition has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that present writ petition be dismissed as withdrawn. 7. Learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 & 2 has no objection to the aforesaid prayer made by the learned counsel for petitioner. 8. As a result, the instant writ petition is accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. 9. Interim order, if any, shall stand vacated. 10. It is however, provided that, in case, the complicity of petitioner stands emerged in the crime in question and there is a wanted report against him, petitioner will have liberty to approach this Court, afresh. May 12, 2026 Rama Kant CRLP No. 10763 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad