High Court Dismisses Plea for FIR in Alleged Shooting Incident
The Allahabad High Court has recently rejected a petition filed by News18 reporter Amit Kumar Srivastava, who sought the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) after claiming that an attempt was made on his life by individuals linked to the deceased gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad. This decision was outlined in the case Amit Kumar Srivastava vs State of UP & ors.
The Bench, comprising Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena, considered a police report which indicated that Srivastava’s allegations were baseless and possibly aimed at securing personal protection. The Court, in its order issued on August 12, highlighted the conflicting narratives presented by the parties involved.
Upon reviewing the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, the Bench noted, “It is evident that the parties are at variance on the question as to whether the alleged incident had actually taken place.”
Legal Alternatives Unexplored
The Court reiterated that when police decline to file an FIR, the appropriate recourse is to approach a magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 175(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The magistrate has the authority to order the filing of an FIR or to ensure a thorough investigation, even suggesting a change in the investigating officer if needed.
However, Srivastava bypassed these channels and directly approached the High Court. The Court concluded that his failure to utilize these statutory remedies rendered the petition untenable.
More Read
“We do not find any reason to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus,” the judges ruled.
Allegations and Police Findings
According to Srivastava, he was attacked by four individuals on motorcycles while returning from covering flooding in Prayagraj’s Jhusi area on August 1, 2025. He alleged that the attackers were linked to Atiq Ahmad’s associates, unhappy with his reporting, and named eight people as accused. When the police did not register an FIR, he sought relief from the High Court.
The State opposed his plea, revealing that police investigations found the claims to be fabricated. CCTV footage from a nearby petrol station contradicted Srivastava’s story, while forensic analysis suggested discrepancies in the bullet trajectory. The police suspected that the incident was orchestrated to gain security cover for Srivastava.
More Read
A State counsel argued, “Under the pretext of covering the news relating to the murder of Atiq Ahmad, the petitioner sought to project himself as the sole prompt news reporter and, on that basis, intended to obtain police security for himself.”
Court’s Warning Against Misuse of Article 226
Recognizing the disputed facts, the Court ruled against issuing a directive for FIR under Article 226 and dismissed the plea. The Bench expressed concern over the increasing tendency of litigants to approach the High Court directly under Article 226 for FIR registration without exhausting available statutory remedies under BNSS.
The judges emphasized that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not become the first resort. “It is high time to curb this growing trend of litigants rushing to the High Court without first availing the statutory remedies,” the Bench commented.
Advocates Deepak Kumar Pandey and Vinay Kumar Mishra represented Srivastava, while Advocate SK Ojha appeared for the State. Advocate Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi represented other respondents.
