Rajesh Bothra … v. Central Bureau of Investigation

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate along with Sri Harsh Vardhan Kediya and Sri Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akash Prasad, Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring as illegal the arrest and subsequent remand of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. RC0062024A0032 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, District Lucknow, and direct the release of the petitioner and consequently, set aside the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, CBI (Central), Lucknow in connection with FIR No. RC0062024A0032 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, District Lucknow (annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) direct the Respondent to pay appropriate damages as compensation to the petitioner for his illegal arrest and detention.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that neither he is named in the aforesaid FIR nor was he ever required by Investigating Officer for interrogation after registration of FIR but was apprehended by the police 12/13 November, 2025 at 12:30 am. and was interrogated for about eight hours. His personal search was conducted and accordingly search memo was prepared. The grounds of arrest were communicated to him and he was produced before the court concerned after 24 hours of his arrest, hence, the arrest is vitiated and is in violation of Sections 58 & 187 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding Sections 57 & 167 of Cr.P.C.). It is further argued that arrest of the petitioner is also bad for nor complying with the provisions of Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. It is contended that had the petitioner been served a notice then certainly he would have cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is not only arbitrary but also illegal in the eyes of law, for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of law provided under Sections 35(3) of the B.N.S.S..

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasized that the objection regarding not producing the accused after arrest within 24 hours was raised before the trial court at the time of passing the order on remand but learned trial court while hearing on the remand of the accused did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner and subsequently sent the petitioner in judicial custody indicating complete non application of mind and non appreciation of law and facts. It has been strongly emphasized by the learned counsel that since the arrest of the petitioner is bad and vitiated, hence, his detention is within four corners of the offence of wrongful confinement as provided under Section 340 of IPC.

5. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by learned trial court merits to be quashed being violative of the fundamental rights and personal liberty of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition and prayers made there in.

7. Contention is that writ of mandamus cannot lie against the judicial order passed by a competent court of jurisdiction. Further, the ground upon which instant writ of mandamus has been prepared i.e. for non producing the arrestee before the court concerned within 24 hours of his arrest, had already been raised by the petitioner before the court concerned, and learned trial court after considering the grounds raised by arrestee/petitioner, entire facts and circumstances and relevant provisions of law has passed a legal, reasonable and completely judicious order dated 14.11.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further emphasized that since the allegations against the accused are serious in nature, hence the provisions of Section 35(3) B.N.S.S. would not be attracted in the peculiarity of the case itself. Once, a competent court has allowed the remand of accused sending him in a judicial custody, it becomes a judicial order and in that eventuality, the writ of mandamus cannot be said to be the appropriate remedy. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat and others; MANU/SC/0800/2012 wherein in paragraph 24, the Apex Court has held as under: "24. The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated Under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner. It is apt to note that in Madhu Limaye (supra), it has been stated that once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand, the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters." (emphasis by the Court)

9. In Neeta Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13578 of 2024; the Apex Court has observed that: "The underlying reason why judicial orders are not amenable to challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seems to be that such orders cannot be legitimately claimed to have been passed by the presiding officer of a court in breach or violation of a fundamental right, any right conferred by the Constitution or a statutorily conferred right, which could be corrected by issuance of a writ of certiorari in exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the high courts. After all, should any right of a person be infringed as a consequence of a judicial order, the laws provide for the fora where such order is amenable to challenge and it is such fora, which ought to be approached for redress of one's grievance. This position flows from Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra¹¹ and Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra¹2, as well as the decision of a bench of three Judges in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (emphasis by the Court)

10. Learned counsel for respondents has further placed reliance on the judgement in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee; MANU/SC/0940/2018, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "The question as to whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation, this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar through his father v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., MANU/SC/0626/2014: (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/0800/2012: (2013) 1 SCC 314. It is no more res integra. In the present case, admittedly, when the writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed by the Respondent on 18th/19th March, 2018 and decided by the High Court on 21st March, 2018 her husband Rizwan Alam Siddique was in police custody pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate granting his police custody in connection with FIR No. I-31 vide order dated 17th March, 2018 and which police remand was to enure till 23rd March, 2018. Further, without challenging the stated order of the Magistrate, a writ petition was filed limited to the relief of habeas corpus. In that view of the matter, it was not a case of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas corpus could be issued."

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has emphasized while placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments that the Apex Court has observed that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in respect of a person who is in judicial custody in connection with a criminal case under investigation, pursuant of an order of remand passed by the competent court of jurisdiction. Although, the aforesaid case laws are concerned to the writ of habeas corpus and not to the writ of mandamus itself, but as per learned counsel for respondent, writ of habeas corpus for any detenue who is in the judicial custody by an order passed by a competent court of jurisdiction is not maintainable rather the said order should be challenged before proper forum.

12. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ of mandamus is maintainable and his prayer can be allowed as this Court has been conferred wide power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fertilizer Corporation vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC

568. In this referred case, petitioner had challenged the legality of sale of certain plants and equipments of the factory and filed writ petition under Article 32 with a prayer to restrain the respondents from selling the plants and equipments.

13. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 799. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of violation and infringement of fundamental right of the arrestee, if grounds of the arrest are not disclosed to the arrestee/detenue or if he is not produced before the court concerned within stipulated time. Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such case his arrest and remand shall be vitiated.

14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and have gone through the facts and circumstances, impugned order passed by learned trial court and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in respective case laws, submitted by the parties.

15. The question which arises for our consideration is whether a writ of mandamus can be filed challenging the judicial order passed by a competent court against the judicial remand of accused? The answer is that a writ of mandamus will not lie for this purpose rather the petitioner is at liberty to challenge it by way of other remedies available to him in accordance with law.

16. It is appropriate to mention here that writ of mandamus is a command and it compels a public authority to perform a statutory or public duty which they may have failed or refused to perform. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is not maintainable to challenge a judicial remand order even if question of life and liberty of an accused is involved under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as once a judicial remand is passed, custody becomes legal and such as writ of mandamus cannot lie against such judicial order. This would be clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments of Neeta Singh (supra) & Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that judicial orders are not amenable to challenge in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the remand order is fundamentally the judicial function discharged by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, writ of mandamus cannot be used as substitute for statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

17. We have also perused the case laws cited by learned counsel for petitioner and found them not applicable in the facts of the instant writ petition. In Fertilizer Corporation (supra), the petition was filed under Article 32 before Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the alleged arbitrariness of the authorities. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that jurisdiction conferred upon Supreme Court by Article 32, is an important and integral part of basis structure of constitution. The violation of a fundamental right is sine qua non of the exercise of right under Article 32. No doubt under Article 32 Hon'ble Supreme Court has been conferred the jurisdiction for the enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens, but for that purpose, it is also to be seen as to whether any fundamental right of a citizen has been infringed. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that petitioner had no locus to file the petition under Article 32 against the authorities and resultantly dismissed the same. However, the Apex Court has held that in an appropriate case it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceedings be it under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

18. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) the Apex Court observed that the arrest will be vitiated if accused is not produced before the concerned court within the stipulated time. In the facts of aforesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court found the arrest as vitiated and therefore, reversed the judicial order passed by the court concerned.

19. However, in the instant case, this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Neeta Singh (supra) & Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben (supra) the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a judicial order and the same is not amenable to challenge in writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India as such, the aforesaid grounds may be grounds available to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate in an appropriate proceeding but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

20. Considering the entire facts, circumstances and case laws, we are of the view that the instant writ petition of mandamus claiming the quashing of the impugned judicial order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction is not maintainable.

21. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.

22. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from raising a challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate before the appropriate Court in appropriate proceedings. December 15, 2025 Reena/Pachhere/- (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Advocate along with Sri Harsh Vardhan Kediya and Sri Syed Mohammad Haider Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akash Prasad, Advocate assisted by Sri Himanshu Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for the following main reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring as illegal the arrest and subsequent remand of the petitioner in connection with FIR No. RC0062024A0032 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, District Lucknow, and direct the release of the petitioner and consequently, set aside the order dated 14.11.2025 passed by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption, CBI (Central), Lucknow in connection with FIR No. RC0062024A0032 of 2024, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471, 477A IPC and Sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, at Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow, District Lucknow (annexed as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition). (ii) direct the Respondent to pay appropriate damages as compensation to the petitioner for his illegal arrest and detention.

3. Contention of the petitioner is that neither he is named in the aforesaid FIR nor was he ever required by Investigating Officer for interrogation after registration of FIR but was apprehended by the police 12/13 November, 2025 at 12:30 am. and was interrogated for about eight hours. His personal search was conducted and accordingly search memo was prepared. The grounds of arrest were communicated to him and he was produced before the court concerned after 24 hours of his arrest, hence, the arrest is vitiated and is in violation of Sections 58 & 187 of B.N.S.S. (corresponding Sections 57 & 167 of Cr.P.C.). It is further argued that arrest of the petitioner is also bad for nor complying with the provisions of Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S. It is contended that had the petitioner been served a notice then certainly he would have cooperated in the investigation. Therefore, the arrest of the petitioner is not only arbitrary but also illegal in the eyes of law, for non compliance of the mandatory provisions of law provided under Sections 35(3) of the B.N.S.S..

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further emphasized that the objection regarding not producing the accused after arrest within 24 hours was raised before the trial court at the time of passing the order on remand but learned trial court while hearing on the remand of the accused did not consider the objections raised by the petitioner and subsequently sent the petitioner in judicial custody indicating complete non application of mind and non appreciation of law and facts. It has been strongly emphasized by the learned counsel that since the arrest of the petitioner is bad and vitiated, hence, his detention is within four corners of the offence of wrongful confinement as provided under Section 340 of IPC.

5. The further argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order passed by learned trial court merits to be quashed being violative of the fundamental rights and personal liberty of the petitioner.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents have raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant writ petition and prayers made there in.

7. Contention is that writ of mandamus cannot lie against the judicial order passed by a competent court of jurisdiction. Further, the ground upon which instant writ of mandamus has been prepared i.e. for non producing the arrestee before the court concerned within 24 hours of his arrest, had already been raised by the petitioner before the court concerned, and learned trial court after considering the grounds raised by arrestee/petitioner, entire facts and circumstances and relevant provisions of law has passed a legal, reasonable and completely judicious order dated 14.11.2025.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents further emphasized that since the allegations against the accused are serious in nature, hence the provisions of Section 35(3) B.N.S.S. would not be attracted in the peculiarity of the case itself. Once, a competent court has allowed the remand of accused sending him in a judicial custody, it becomes a judicial order and in that eventuality, the writ of mandamus cannot be said to be the appropriate remedy. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben vs. State of Gujarat and others; MANU/SC/0800/2012 wherein in paragraph 24, the Apex Court has held as under: "24. The act of directing remand of an accused is fundamentally a judicial function. The Magistrate does not act in executive capacity while ordering the detention of an accused. While exercising this judicial act, it is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to satisfy himself whether the materials placed before him justify such a remand or, to put it differently, whether there exist reasonable grounds to commit the accused to custody and extend his remand. The purpose of remand as postulated Under Section 167 is that investigation cannot be completed within 24 hours. It enables the Magistrate to see that the remand is really necessary. This requires the investigating agency to send the case diary along with the remand report so that the Magistrate can appreciate the factual scenario and apply his mind whether there is a warrant for police remand or justification for judicial remand or there is no need for any remand at all. It is obligatory on the part of the Magistrate to apply his mind and not to pass an order of remand automatically or in a mechanical manner. It is apt to note that in Madhu Limaye (supra), it has been stated that once it is shown that the arrests made by the police officers were illegal, it was necessary for the State to establish that at the stage of remand, the Magistrate directed detention in jail custody after applying his mind to all relevant matters." (emphasis by the Court)

9. In Neeta Singh and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others passed in S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 13578 of 2024; the Apex Court has observed that: "The underlying reason why judicial orders are not amenable to challenge in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seems to be that such orders cannot be legitimately claimed to have been passed by the presiding officer of a court in breach or violation of a fundamental right, any right conferred by the Constitution or a statutorily conferred right, which could be corrected by issuance of a writ of certiorari in exercise of high prerogative writ jurisdiction of the high courts. After all, should any right of a person be infringed as a consequence of a judicial order, the laws provide for the fora where such order is amenable to challenge and it is such fora, which ought to be approached for redress of one's grievance. This position flows from Constitution Bench decisions of this Court in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra¹¹ and Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra¹2, as well as the decision of a bench of three Judges in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd." (emphasis by the Court)

10. Learned counsel for respondents has further placed reliance on the judgement in the case of State of Maharashtra and others vs. Tasneem Rizwan Siddiquee; MANU/SC/0940/2018, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that: "The question as to whether a writ of habeas corpus could be maintained in respect of a person who is in police custody pursuant to a remand order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate in connection with the offence under investigation, this issue has been considered in the case of Saurabh Kumar through his father v. Jailor, Koneila Jail and Anr., MANU/SC/0626/2014: (2014) 13 SCC 436 and Manubhai Ratilal Patel v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/0800/2012: (2013) 1 SCC 314. It is no more res integra. In the present case, admittedly, when the writ petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus was filed by the Respondent on 18th/19th March, 2018 and decided by the High Court on 21st March, 2018 her husband Rizwan Alam Siddique was in police custody pursuant to an order passed by the Magistrate granting his police custody in connection with FIR No. I-31 vide order dated 17th March, 2018 and which police remand was to enure till 23rd March, 2018. Further, without challenging the stated order of the Magistrate, a writ petition was filed limited to the relief of habeas corpus. In that view of the matter, it was not a case of continued illegal detention but the incumbent was in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, which was in force, granting police remand during investigation of a criminal case. Resultantly, no writ of habeas corpus could be issued."

11. Learned counsel for the respondent has emphasized while placing reliance on the aforesaid judgments that the Apex Court has observed that the writ of habeas corpus cannot be issued in respect of a person who is in judicial custody in connection with a criminal case under investigation, pursuant of an order of remand passed by the competent court of jurisdiction. Although, the aforesaid case laws are concerned to the writ of habeas corpus and not to the writ of mandamus itself, but as per learned counsel for respondent, writ of habeas corpus for any detenue who is in the judicial custody by an order passed by a competent court of jurisdiction is not maintainable rather the said order should be challenged before proper forum.

12. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that writ of mandamus is maintainable and his prayer can be allowed as this Court has been conferred wide power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Fertilizer Corporation vs. Union of India (1981) 1 SCC

568. In this referred case, petitioner had challenged the legality of sale of certain plants and equipments of the factory and filed writ petition under Article 32 with a prayer to restrain the respondents from selling the plants and equipments.

13. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Vihaan Kumar vs. State of Haryana and another (2025) 5 Supreme Court Cases 799. In this case, Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the issue of violation and infringement of fundamental right of the arrestee, if grounds of the arrest are not disclosed to the arrestee/detenue or if he is not produced before the court concerned within stipulated time. Hon'ble Apex Court held that in such case his arrest and remand shall be vitiated.

14. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties on the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and have gone through the facts and circumstances, impugned order passed by learned trial court and the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in respective case laws, submitted by the parties.

15. The question which arises for our consideration is whether a writ of mandamus can be filed challenging the judicial order passed by a competent court against the judicial remand of accused? The answer is that a writ of mandamus will not lie for this purpose rather the petitioner is at liberty to challenge it by way of other remedies available to him in accordance with law.

16. It is appropriate to mention here that writ of mandamus is a command and it compels a public authority to perform a statutory or public duty which they may have failed or refused to perform. Therefore, a writ of mandamus is not maintainable to challenge a judicial remand order even if question of life and liberty of an accused is involved under Article 21 of Constitution of India, as once a judicial remand is passed, custody becomes legal and such as writ of mandamus cannot lie against such judicial order. This would be clear from the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgments of Neeta Singh (supra) & Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben (supra) wherein the Apex Court has held that judicial orders are not amenable to challenge in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the remand order is fundamentally the judicial function discharged by the learned Magistrate. Moreover, writ of mandamus cannot be used as substitute for statutory remedy available to the petitioner.

17. We have also perused the case laws cited by learned counsel for petitioner and found them not applicable in the facts of the instant writ petition. In Fertilizer Corporation (supra), the petition was filed under Article 32 before Hon'ble Supreme Court challenging the alleged arbitrariness of the authorities. It was held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that jurisdiction conferred upon Supreme Court by Article 32, is an important and integral part of basis structure of constitution. The violation of a fundamental right is sine qua non of the exercise of right under Article 32. No doubt under Article 32 Hon'ble Supreme Court has been conferred the jurisdiction for the enforcement of fundamental rights of citizens, but for that purpose, it is also to be seen as to whether any fundamental right of a citizen has been infringed. Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that petitioner had no locus to file the petition under Article 32 against the authorities and resultantly dismissed the same. However, the Apex Court has held that in an appropriate case it may become necessary in the changing awareness of legal rights and social obligations to take a broader view of the question of locus to initiate a proceedings be it under Article 226 or Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

18. In the case of Vihaan Kumar (supra) the Apex Court observed that the arrest will be vitiated if accused is not produced before the concerned court within the stipulated time. In the facts of aforesaid case Hon'ble Supreme Court found the arrest as vitiated and therefore, reversed the judicial order passed by the court concerned.

19. However, in the instant case, this Court is exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India and keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Neeta Singh (supra) & Manubhai Ratilal Patel Tr. Ushaben (supra) the order passed by the learned Magistrate is a judicial order and the same is not amenable to challenge in writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India as such, the aforesaid grounds may be grounds available to the petitioner to raise a challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate in an appropriate proceeding but not in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India.

20. Considering the entire facts, circumstances and case laws, we are of the view that the instant writ petition of mandamus claiming the quashing of the impugned judicial order passed by the court of competent jurisdiction is not maintainable.

21. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is upheld and the writ petition is dismissed.

22. However, dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner from raising a challenge to the order passed by the learned Magistrate before the appropriate Court in appropriate proceedings. December 15, 2025 Reena/Pachhere/- (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) REENA KANNAUJIYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench