HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2544 of 2026 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard Mr. Mahipal Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Shailendra Singh Rathore, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-3. 2. Perused the record 3. Petitioner-Avnish Bhadauriya has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 15.01.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-3, Rajkumar and registered as Case Crime No. 0003 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4), 308(2) BNS, Police Station-Jaitpur, District-Agra. 4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2 submits that in respect of an occurrence, which is alleged to have occurred on 14.01.2026, an FIR dated 18.01.2026 was lodged by Jai Kishore from the side of petitioner and was registered as Case Crime No. 0007 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 324(4), 333, 352, 351(2) BNS, Police Station-Jaitpur, District-East Commissionerate Agra. 5. In respect of the same incident, another FIR dated 15.01.2026 has been lodged by first informant-respondent-3, Rajkumar and registered as Case Crime No. 0003 of 2026, under Sections 191(2), 351(2), 352, 324(4), 308(2) BNS, Police Station-Jaitpur, District-Agra. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that the occurrence is admitted to the parties. In Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahipal Singh, Rishiraj Chauhan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Nisha Chouhan, Shailendra Singh Rathore Avnish Bhadauriya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) view of above, the primary question, which is now required to be answered by Court below is; as to who is the aggressor? The said question cannot be answered by Court below in isolation i.e. in absence of petitioner. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. 6. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not overcome the same. 7. Having heard, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 and 2, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-3,upon perusal of record and considering the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A. on behalf of State-respondents in opposition to present writ petition as noted herein above, we find that no good or sufficient ground has emerged so as to quash the impugned FIR. 8. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed. 9. It is, accordingly, dismissed. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. February 25, 2026 Vinay CRLP No. 2544 of 2026 2 (Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad