Dismissed¶20

Ritesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC3 Feb 2026CRLP/678/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 678 of 2026, Ritesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 others, decided February 17, 2026 by Rajeev Misra, J. and Lakshmi Kant Shukla, J. Challenge to FIR under Sections 84, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Khanpur, Ghazipur; petition dismissed as infructuous after final report under Section 193(3) BNSS dated 01.02.2026; interim order vacated; no costs or quantum.

What did the court decide?

No cause of action survives to the petitioner to maintain the present writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed as having rendered infructuous in view of the final report submitted under Section 193(3) BNSS. ¶20

Ritesh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 678 of 2026

¶3

Ritesh Yadav

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 47

¶10

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Heard Mr. Abhishek Gupta, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.

¶12

2. Perused the record

¶13

Petitioner-Ritesh Yadav has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 16.11.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Sumita Devi and registered as Case Crime No. 324 of 2025, under Sections 84, 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Khanpur, District-Ghazipur.

¶14

On the matter being taken up, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 submits that after completion of statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number, Investigating Officer has forward the final report/police report dated 01.02.2026 in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS. It is thus urged by the learned A.G.A. that in view of above, no cause of action now survives to the petitioner to maintain present writ petition. As such, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶15

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner fairly submits that present writ petition be dismissed as having rendered infructuous in view of the submissions made by the learned A.G.A.

¶16

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for

¶17

CRLP No. 678 of 2026

¶18

¶19

State-respondents 1, 2 and 3, upon perusal of record and considering the submissions urged by the learned A.G.A., we find that no cause of action now survives to petitioner to maintain the present writ petition.

¶20

In view of above, this writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having rendered infructuous.

¶21

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶22

February 17, 2026 Vinay

¶23

(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ritesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ritesh Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmendra Kumar vs State of U.P. and 11 Others

Virendra Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Deepu @ Deepak Kumar vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Jayanti vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Bablu Patel @ Shyam Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kamlesh Kumar Pandey vs State of U.P. and 2 Others