Dismissed¶16

Sachin Sharma v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC6 May 2026CRLP/10387/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10387 of 2026; writ of mandamus; free and fair investigation; Case Crime No. 714 of 2024; sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC; Police Station Vijay Nagar; District Commissionerate Ghaziabad; F.I.R. dated 29.9.2024; charge-sheet dated 8.11.2025; section 173(2) Cr.P.C.; Chapter XII Cr.P.C.; no cause of action; writ petition misconceived; dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No cause of action arose to the petitioner to file the present writ petition; the writ petition is misconceived and therefore liable to be dismissed. ¶15

Sachin Sharma vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10387 of 2026

¶2

Sachin Sharma

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Akshay Pratap Singh, Singh	Hemendra Pratap
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶5

Court No. - 49

¶6

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Akshay Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1,2,3.

¶8

Perused the record.

¶9

Petitioner- Sachin Sharma has approached this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding respondents-2 and 3 to carry out free and fair investigation of Case Crime No. 714 of 2024, under sections 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Vijay Nagar, District- Commissionerate, Ghaziabad, arising out of F.I.R. dated 29.9.2024, lodged by first informant Sachin Sharma, the writ petitioner.

¶10

On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents- 1,2, 3 submits that upon completion of statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C., had forwarded the requisite charge-sheet/police report dated 8.11.2025 as contemplated under section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against two of the named accused i.e. respondents- 4 and 5, whereas four of the named accused i.e. respondents- 6,7,8,9 have been exculpated of the charges alleged against them in the F.I.R. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition.

¶11

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

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1,2, and 3 and upon persual of record and considering the objections raised by the l earned A.G.A. in opposition to present writ petition, we finds that no

¶13

CRLP No. 10387 of 2026

¶14

¶15

cause of action arose to petitioner to file the present writ petition. As such, present writ petition is misconceived and therefore, liable to be dismissed.

¶16

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

May 6, 2026 Arshad

¶18

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

¶19

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sachin Sharma v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sachin Sharma v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ravi Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sharda and 2 Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Arnav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dhavendra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Priti and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhoora Paswan and 7 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others