Aquib Khan And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others

1. Heard Miss Vandana Singh Parmar, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Ram Chandra Solanki, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent-4 by filing his Vakaltanama in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Aquib Khan and Mohd. Nizam have approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the impugned FIR dated 02.04.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Mohd. Nadeem and registered as Case Crime No. 33 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Beckonganj, District-Kanpur Nagar.

4. On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 submits that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 11.03.2026, petitoner-1, Aquib Khan made an application dated 12.03.2026 to the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi with copies to the various authorities whose names have been mentioned at page-39 of the paper book regarding an incident alleged to have occurred on 11.03.2026. It was followed by another application dated 17.03.2026 addressed to Hon'ble The Chief Minister with copies to different authorities. The same is on record at page-42 of the paper book. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that in respect of the same incident dated 11.03.2026, the impugned FIR dated 02.04.2026 was lodged by first informant-respondent-4 and registered as Case Crime No. 33 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Beckonganj, District-Kanpur Nagar. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 would thus submit that since occurrence is admitted to both the parties, therefore, prima-facie the occurrence is proved. In view of above, the primary question to be now considered is as to who is the aggressor. The said question cannot be answered in isolation i.e. in absence of petitioners. In view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. Remedy lies to petitioners to file an application under Section 156(3)/173(4) BNSS before the Jurisdictional Magistrate for registration of their FIR. According to the learned A.G.A., the said application has already been filed. Copy of same is on record at page-47 of the paper book. As such, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.

5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioners could not overcome the same.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 & 3, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 and upon perusal of record, we find that in view of the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ petition as noted above, which are also borne out from the record and furthermore, the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for petitioner with reference to the record at this stage, therefore, we do not find any good or sufficient ground to entertain the present writ petition.

7. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.

8. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

May 6, 2026

Vinay