The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a News18 reporter, seeking a direction to the Uttar Pradesh Police to register an FIR over his allegation that unidentified assailants had fired at his car while he was returning after covering the flood situation in Jhusi, Prayagraj.
A Division Bench of Justice Chandra Dhari Singh and Justice Tarun Saxena held that disputed questions of fact were involved and that the petitioner had not exhausted the statutory remedy available before the Magistrate.
According to the petition, the alleged incident occurred on August 1, 2025, when four unidentified persons riding two motorcycles allegedly opened fire at the reporter’s car at Rahimapur. The reporter claimed that he had incurred the displeasure of persons allegedly associated with the Atiq Ahmad gang because of reports aired by him and had named eight persons in his complaint. Despite approaching the Jhunsi police station and subsequently higher police authorities, he alleged that no FIR was registered.
The State disputed the allegation, submitting that the police inquiry found no such firing incident had occurred. It relied on CCTV footage, statements of local residents and other material collected during the inquiry. The State further alleged that the complaint had been lodged with an intention to secure police protection.
Also Read: Bombay High Court Cancels Bail of Goa Nightclub Owners in Case Over Death of 25 Persons in Fire
The High Court noted that the parties were fundamentally at variance over whether the alleged incident had actually taken place. The Court therefore considered whether it could exercise its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct registration of an FIR where the underlying facts themselves were disputed.
The Bench held that although registration of an FIR is mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. & Ors., (2014) 2 SCC 1, does not permit a complainant to bypass the statutory remedies available under the criminal procedure law and directly approach the High Court.
“
“The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering an offence if a cognizable offence is disclosed, and action must be taken against erring officers who fail to register the FIR. However, what Lalita Kumari does not sanction is the bypassing of the statutory remedies available to an aggrieved person when the police fail to discharge their mandatory duty.”
In reference to statutory scheme under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, particularly Sections 173(4) and 175(3), corresponding to Sections 154(3) and 156(3) of the CrPC, the court held that a person aggrieved by non-registration of an FIR must first approach the higher police authorities and thereafter the jurisdictional Magistrate, who can direct registration of the FIR and even monitor the investigation.
The Bench emphasised that the remedy before the Magistrate is not merely an alternative remedy but the primary and preferred statutory remedy that ordinarily must be exhausted before invoking Article 226. The reference was made to Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 442.
The Court clarified that its approach did not dilute the right of a person to have a cognizable offence investigated. It observed that the right to a fair investigation forms part of Article 21, but held that this could not justify bypassing the statutory procedure.
“
“While this Court is sympathetic to the plight of citizens who find their right to have a cognizable offence investigated frustrated by police inaction, and this Court fully appreciates that the right to a fair investigation is part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, sympathy cannot override procedure.”
Since the present case involved disputed facts concerning the alleged firing itself and the petitioner had not availed the remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS, the Court declined to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition.
