HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10380 of 2026 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J. HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J. Heard Mr. Mohd. Zakir, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Brij Lal Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and Mr. K.K. Nishad, learned State Law Officer on behalf of the State. There is an allegation of assault by the petitioner along with six others nominated accused besides un-named offenders where four persons were assaulted employing sticks (lathi) and sharp edged weapons. Those who received injuries are Nadir, Mustafa, Harun and Abdul Rauf. Abdul Rauf succumbed to his injuries. A perusal of the injury report shows that Harun sustained a solitary abrasion whereas Abdul Rauf sustained a contusion about 2.0 X 1.0 cm on the left side of chest with a X-ray advised. The third injured is Nadir son of Harun. Harun has sustained an incised wound about 2.0 X 0.5 cm., bone deep on the right side of head about 6 cm above the right ear. X-ray of the skull was advised. Besides, there are three contusions, two on the chest and one on the right shoulder. The fourth injured is Mustafa who has a lacerated wound about 4.0 X 1.0 cm on the right side of parietal bone with X-ray advised. There are two red contusions sustained by Mustafa one on the left shoulder and other on the right side of back of chest. The autopsy report, relating to the deceased Abdul Rauf, shows the cause of death as septicemia consequent upon perforation of peritonitis as a result of blunt force trauma to the abdomen. Apparently, the injury was caused by blows which the victim received to his abdomen. The autopsy report shows Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brij Lal Shukla, G.A. Rashid .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) three injuries were noticed, all the on the abdomen which were surgically sutured. Looking to the magnanimity of the assault and the damage caused, we are of opinion that whatever the learned counsel for the petitioner very ably argues, in support of this writ petition, are all matters of defence to be considered, in the event the petitioner is chargesheeted. Before that the relevant matter may be brought to the notice of the Investigating Officer. In the entirety of circumstances, we do not find it to be a fit case for quashing the impugned FIR in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. This petition fails and is summarily dismissed. May 6, 2026 C. MANI/ Prashant CRLP No. 10380 of 2026 2 (Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.) Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad