Allahabad High Court Dismisses News18 Reporter’s Petition for FIR
The Allahabad High Court has recently ruled against a petition by a News18 reporter seeking to file a First Information Report (FIR) related to an alleged attempt on his life by associates of the deceased gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad. The court, comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena, dismissed the plea following a police investigation that found the claims to be baseless. [Amit Kumar Srivastava vs State of UP & ors].
During the proceedings, the police countered the allegations made by the petitioner, Amit Kumar Srivastava, stating they were fabricated with the ulterior motive of securing personal security. “Considering the contents and averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, it is evident that there is a dispute over whether the alleged incident actually occurred,” the court declared in its judgment on August 12.
The court reinforced the legal precedent that if the police fail to register an FIR, the concerned individual can pursue remedies under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). As per the law, a magistrate has the authority to order the registration of an FIR or mandate a thorough investigation by possibly appointing a different investigating officer to ensure fairness.
However, Srivastava bypassed these procedural avenues and approached the High Court directly. In dismissing the petition, the court emphasized the necessity of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking intervention under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution. “We find no justification to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 for the issuance of an order, direction, or writ as requested in this petition,” the court concluded.
According to Srivastava, the alleged incident occurred on August 1, 2025, when unidentified men on motorcycles purportedly opened fire on his car as he returned from covering floods in the Jhusi area of Prayagraj. He claimed the attack was orchestrated by individuals linked to Atiq Ahmad, aggrieved by his news coverage, and named eight suspects. Despite filing a complaint, the police did not register an FIR, leading him to petition the High Court.
More Read
The State opposed the application, arguing that police investigations revealed the accusations to be fabricated. Surveillance footage and forensic evidence contradicted Srivastava’s narrative, suggesting his claims of a shooting were concocted to obtain police protection.
A State counsel argued, “During the coverage of Atiq Ahmad’s murder, various media were actively reporting from Prayagraj. The petitioner sought to position himself as the leading news reporter to gain police security.” The counsel further noted Srivastava’s history of filing unfounded complaints against adversaries.
Given the conflicting accounts, the court deemed it inappropriate to direct the filing of an FIR under Article 226 and dismissed the plea. The judgment also addressed the growing tendency of petitioners seeking the High Court’s intervention without following statutory procedures, warning against the misuse of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
More Read
The court remarked, “It is essential to curtail this increasing trend of litigants approaching the High Court without first utilizing statutory remedies, as it undermines the procedural framework of the BNSS/CrPC and burdens the court, which is reserved for rare and exceptional cases.”
Advocates Deepak Kumar Pandey and Vinay Kumar Mishra represented the petitioner, while Advocate SK Ojha appeared for the State, and Advocate Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi represented other respondents.
