Rahul Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Rahul Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim order: notice issued to respondent no. 2; S.H.O., P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow directed to file his personal affidavit annexing the complaint moved by respondent no. 3; impugned proceedings stayed until further orders; case listed on 21.04.2026.

Issue for consideration

Whether the challani report and the order dated 09.12.2025 passed thereon under Section 130 BNSS by respondent no. 2, P.S. Mahanagar, Lucknow ought to be quashed as an abuse of the process of law. +1 more

Court's answer

Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A., the application, the impugned order and other relevant documents, the court held that the matter requires consideration.

Ratio / Principle

The impugned notice reveals that on the complaint of respondent no. 3 the Sub-Inspector visited the site and forwarded the challani report, whereas it was obligatory on the part of the police officer to lodge an F.I.R. on a complaint showing commission of a cognizable offence, and not to forward a challani report on the basis of mere presumption.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), Court No. 14; Rajeev Singh, J.; decided March 13, 2026. Interim order on Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 667 of 2026. Applicant Rahul Pandey, residing in one room of his ancestral house with respondent nos. 3 and 4 (his aunt and uncle, Bua and Fufa) in possession of the rest, sought quashing of a challani report and the preventive order dated 09.12.2025 passed thereon under Section 130 BNSS by respondent no. 2, P.S. Mahanagar, Lucknow. Counsel argued that where a complaint shows a cognizable offence the police officer's bounden duty is to lodge an F.I.R., not take preventive action, and that the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mahanagar on Sub-Inspector Alok Kumar's challani report was mechanical, with neither the complaint copy provided nor any inquiry conducted. Learned A.G.A. opposed but did not dispute that the notice contained no description of the complaint. Observing that the challani report had been forwarded on mere presumption when an F.I.R. was obligatory on a complaint disclosing a cognizable offence, the court held the matter requires consideration, issued notice to respondent no. 2, directed the S.H.O., P.S. Mahanagar to file a personal affidavit annexing respondent no. 3's complaint, stayed the impugned proceedings until further orders, and listed the case on 21.04.2026. No precedent cited; final adjudication left open.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 667 of 2026

Rahul Pandey

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Manoj Kumar Pandey : G.A.

Court No. - 14

HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.

This application has been filed for quashing the challani report as well as order dated 09.12.2025 passed on the same under Section 130 BNSS by respondent no. 2, P.S. Mahanagar, Lucknow.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicants resides in one room of his ancestral house and the rest of the house is in the possession of respondent nos. 3 and 4, who are his aunt and uncle (Bua and Fufa). Submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the private respondents are harassing the applicant only with the intention to leave the premises. It is further submitted that impugned notice was issued by the Assistance Commissioner of Police Mahanagar, Lucknow in mechanical manner on the challani report submitted by Mr. Alok Kumar, Sub-Inspector, P.S. Mahanagar, Lucknow, who visited the site on the complaint of private respondents. It is vehemently submitted that even the copy of the complaint has never been provided to the applicant and no inquiry was ever conducted.

It is submitted that, in case, any complaint was received by the police officials, which shows that cognizable offence is made out, then it is the bounden duty of the police officer to lodge F.I.R. and not to take such preventive action. It is lastly submitted that the impugned proceedings are nothing but the sheer abuse of process of law. It is, thus, submitted that the indulgence of this Court

NA528 No. 667 of 2026

2

is necessary.

Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that all these defence can be raised by the applicant before the Assistant Commissioner/Executive Magistrate. However, he does not dispute the fact that in the notice, there is no description of the complaint, which was being inquired by the Sub-Inspector, who forwarded the challani report.

Considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, impugned order as well as other relevant documents, it is evident that the impugned notice reveals that on the complaint of respondent no. 3, the SubInspector visited the site and forwarded the challani report, though it was obligatory on the part of the police officer to lodge F.I.R. on a complaint, which shows commission of cognizable offence, and not to forward the challani report on the the basis of mere presumption.

In view of above, the matter requires consideration.

Issue notice to respondent no. 2.

List this case on 21.04.2026.

In the meantime, S.H.O., P.S. Mahanagar, District Lucknow is directed to file his personal affidavit annexing therewith the complaint moved by respondent no. 3.

Until further orders of this Court, impugned proceedings shall remain stayed.

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

March 13, 2026 VKS

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench