Allahabad HC rejects News18 reporter's plea for FIR after police probe reveals shooting incident was fake

The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a News18 reporter's petition seeking registration of a First Information Report (FIR) over an alleged attempt on his life by persons associated with slain gangster-politician Atiq Ahmad [Amit Kumar Srivastava vs State of UP & ors].

A Bench of Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena took note of the police response that allegations made by petitioner Amit Kumar Srivastava were false and made only with an intention to get security for himself.

"Taking into consideration the contents and averments made in the writ petition as well as the counter-affidavit, it is evident that the parties are at variance on the question as to whether the alleged incident had actually taken place," the Court said in an order delivered on August 12.

The Court also reiterated the settled legal position that when the police fails to register an FIR, the aggrieved person can approach the magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or Section 175(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

"The Magistrate, upon being prima-facie satisfied, can direct the FIR to be registered, or if it has already been registered, can direct a proper investigation to be conducted, including the power to recommend a change of the investigating officer to ensure a fair and proper investigation," the Court said.

However, Srivastava had chosen to directly approach the High Court.

In the judgment delivered on August 12, the Court said that without availing the remedy under BNSS, his petition was not maintainable.

"We do not find any reason to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of order, direction or writ in the nature of Mandamus, as prayed in the instant writ petition. present writ petition," the Court ruled.

According to Srivastava's plea, while he was returning from covering flood in Prayagraj's Jhusi area on August 1, 2025, four unidentified men on two motorcycles opened fire at his car near Rahimapur.

He alleged the attack was orchestrated by persons close to Atiq Ahmad's network who were angered by his reportage. He named eight individuals as accused. When police did not register an FIR despite his complaint, he moved the High Court.

The State opposed the plea, stating that police inquiries had found his allegations to be false and fabricated.

CCTV footage from a nearby petrol pump reportedly contradicted Srivastava's account and forensic examination of the bullet marks on his vehicle indicated the trajectory did not match the claimed shooting.

The police inquiry further suggested the incident was engineered to secure police security cover for Srivastava.

"At the relevant time, when news reports concerning the murder of Atiq Ahmad were being covered, several press agencies, electronic media, news channels and reporters were actively reporting from District Prayagraj. 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," a State counsel told the Court.

The State also said that Srivastava had a tendency to lodge complaints against persons with whom he had rivalry, without any substantive basis.

Considering the disputed nature of facts, the Court ruled that a direction for FIR cannot be issued under Article 226 and dismissed the plea.

In the judgment, the Court also expressed concern over growing trend of litigants approaching it directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for registration of FIR without first exhausting the statutory remedies available under the BNSS.

It emphasised that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction cannot be converted into a first resort rather than a last resort.

"It is high time to curb this growing trend of litigants rushing to the High Court without first availing the statutory remedies, as it not only defeats the purpose of the procedure prescribed under the BNSS/CrPC but also creates an immense burden on this Court, which is meant to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction in rare and exceptional cases," the Bench said.

Advocates Deepak Kumar Pandey and Vinay Kumar Mishra appeared for the petitioner.

Advocate SK Ojha appeared for the State. Advocate Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi appeared for other respondents.

[Read Judgement]