Allahabad High Court Dismisses News18 Reporter's Plea for FIR After Fake Shooting Claim

The Allahabad High Court on August 12, 2026, dismissed a writ petition filed by News18 reporter Amit Kumar Srivastava seeking a direction to police to register an FIR over an alleged shooting attack, after a police investigation concluded that the incident was entirely fake and fabricated. A division bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena held that the petition was not maintainable because Srivastava had bypassed the statutory remedies available under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

The Reporter's Account: A Narrow Escape?

According to the petition, on August 1, 2025, around 7:00 PM, Srivastava was returning home after covering flood conditions in Jhusi, Prayagraj, when four unidentified men on two motorcycles opened fire on his car near Rahimapur. Srivastava claimed he narrowly escaped as bullets struck his vehicle. In his complaint to the Jhunsi police station, he named several individuals he believed were close associates of the Atiq Ahmad gang, alleging the attack was in retaliation for his news reports against them.

When the police failed to register an FIR, Srivastava moved the High Court directly under Article 226, arguing that the inaction violated the Supreme Court's mandate in Lalita Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh and that the authorities were hand-in-glove with the accused.

The Police Probe: A Staged Incident?

The state responded vehemently, submitting that an immediate inquiry by the Station House Officer and a subsequent independent investigation by the Assistant Police Commissioner revealed the complaint to be false. The inquiry report, annexed with the counter-affidavit, detailed several contradictions: Srivastava's companion gave a different version of the number of attackers; CCTV footage showed the car moving at low speed and stopping at a petrol pump, contradicting the claim of being chased and fired upon; and bullet impact angles did not support a life-threatening attack. Local residents near the alleged spot denied hearing any gunfire.

The state further argued that Srivastava had been seeking police security for weeks and had previously lodged false complaints against rivals. The petition, they contended, was a " gross misuse of the process of law " aimed at pressuring authorities into granting security.

Exhaust Statutory Remedies First, Says Court

The court identified two key issues: whether a writ of mandamus could issue for FIR registration when facts are disputed, and whether the petition was maintainable without availing the remedy under Section 175(3) BNSS (Section 156(3) CrPC).

Reiterating the settled position, the bench observed that where the police refuse to register a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person must first approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 173(4) BNSS, and if that fails, the jurisdictional magistrate under Section 175(3) BNSS. The magistrate has wide powers to direct registration, order investigation, and even monitor the probe.

Citing Sakiri Vasu v. State of Uttar Pradesh and more recently Sujal Vishwas Attavar v. State of Maharashtra , the court emphasized that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be used to bypass this carefully structured statutory scheme. The High Court should not convert itself into a forum of first instance, especially where disputed questions of fact exist.

Key Observations from the Bench

"This Court must, therefore, insist that litigants first exhaust the statutory remedies available under Section 173(4) and Section 175(3) BNSS ... before approaching this Court under Article 226 , unless exceptional circumstances exist which warrant direct intervention."

The bench also noted a "growing trend" of litigants rushing to the High Court without availing statutory remedies, which "defeats the purpose of the procedure prescribed under the BNSS/CrPC and creates a surmounting burden on this Court."

"To allow litigants to bypass this statutory scheme and approach this Court directly would not only undermine the legislative intent but would also encourage a culture of bypassing statutory remedies, which is detrimental to the rule of law ."

No Mandamus for a Fake Claim

Declining to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction , the court ruled: "We do not find any reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus, as prayed in the instant writ petition."

The petition was dismissed without any order as to costs. The judgment serves as a clear reminder that the High Court will not entertain writ petitions for FIR registration when the complainant has an efficacious alternative remedy before the magistrate, and especially when the police investigation has already found the allegations to be false.