##PAGE1##

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20106 of 2026

Ramesh Upadhyay .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 4 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi, Alok Kumar Dwivedi, Sneha Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 48 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following main reliefs:-

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to register a First Information Report on the basis of the complaint submitted by the petitioner against respondent no.4 and to

ensure fair investigation in accordance with law.

II. Issue such other and further writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case; so that

justice may be done."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that on 01.10.2025 at about 3.30 PM, when he was sitting in Chamber No.46, Advocate Building, Collectorate, Varanasi, certain persons discussed and showed a video containing statements made by respondent no.4 against persons belonging to a particular community. It is further submitted that such comments made by respondent no.4 caused grave mental agony, humiliation and insult to the petitioner and other persons associated with the said community. It is vehemently submitted that the alleged statements and videos were publicly circulated on social media platforms including YouTube, therefore, it is widely accessible to the public at large. It is also alleged that respondent no.4 has made objectionable remarks against revered religious personalities including Shankaracharyas, thereby hurting the

religious sentiments of several followers.

CRLP No. 20106 of 2026

2

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner submitted that a complaint was made by the petitioner through respondent no.2 i.e. Commissioner of Police, Varanasi on 08.10.2025 requesting for registration

of F.I.R. against respondent no.4 under appropriate penal provisions.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that despite disclosure of cognizable offence in the complaint, no F.I.R. has been registered by the

respondent authorities, yet.

5. It is submitted that non-registering of F.I.R. on the said complaint by the police authorities is a clear violation of principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 2014 SC (Criminal) 66. It is submitted that since the F.I.R. was not lodged by the police authorities in spite of all efforts, the petitioner has left with no option except to approach this Court by way of filing this writ petition for issuance of order, direction or writ in the nature of mandamus to

the concerned authorities for registration of the F.I.R.

6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that the instant writ petition is nothing but gross misuse of process of law. It is submitted that the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner only for the purpose of escalate the issue. It is also submitted that the petitioner never approached the concerned police station for lodging the F.I.R. as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that the petitioner has appended Annexure No.1, which is the letter written to the Commissioner of Police, Varanasi and copy to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh for issuance of direction to the Police Station Cantt. Varanasi to lodge the F.I.R. The State has raised specific objection during the arguments that the above-said letter dated 08.10.2025 was never received by any police official and has not been authenticated through postal or police record. Learned A.G.A. also submitted that it is settled law that if a person has a grievance that his F.I.R. has not been register