The Allahabad High Court has refused to entertain a petition filed by a News18 reporter seeking registration of an FIR and police protection over an alleged attempt on his life, after the State told the Court that its inquiry had found the reported shooting to be fabricated.
A Bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena was hearing a petition filed by Amit Kumar Srivastava, who claimed that he had been targeted by individuals allegedly linked to the network of slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad.
The Court noted that the police and the petitioner had sharply conflicting accounts about whether the shooting had actually taken place. The State maintained that the allegations were false and had allegedly been made to create grounds for obtaining security cover.
According to Srivastava’s petition, four unidentified men riding two motorcycles opened fire at his car near Rahimapur in Prayagraj’s Jhusi area while he was returning after covering floods on August 1, 2025.
He alleged that the attack was connected to his reporting and named eight people as accused. After his complaint allegedly failed to result in an FIR, he approached the High Court seeking directions to the police.
The State, however, placed a different version before the Bench. Police inquiries allegedly found that CCTV footage from a nearby petrol pump did not support the journalist’s account. A forensic examination of the vehicle also reportedly found that the bullet marks did not correspond with the trajectory expected from the alleged shooting.
The State further alleged that the incident had been staged with the objective of securing police protection.
The Court did not decide the disputed factual allegations in the writ proceedings. Instead, it pointed out that the law provides a specific mechanism for a person seeking registration of an FIR when police authorities fail to act.
Under the applicable provisions of the BNSS, a complainant can approach the Magistrate, who may order registration of an FIR or direct an appropriate investigation where the circumstances warrant it.
The Bench observed that Srivastava had not pursued that statutory remedy before invoking the High Court’s extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
In those circumstances, the Court declined to issue a writ directing registration of an FIR and dismissed the petition.
The Bench also used the case to flag what it described as an increasing practice of approaching High Courts directly for FIR-related directions without first exhausting the remedies provided by criminal procedure law.
It stressed that writ jurisdiction is intended for exceptional situations and should not become the first step in cases where an alternative statutory remedy is available.
The Court said that bypassing the prescribed procedure not only undermines the statutory framework but also adds to the burden on constitutional courts, whose extraordinary jurisdiction is meant to be exercised sparingly.
The petitioner’s case was therefore rejected without the High Court entering into a final determination of the competing claims surrounding the alleged shooting.
