Aniruddh Yadav @ Sunil Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 38317 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Aniruddh Yadav @ Sunil Yadav And 3 Others vs State Of Up And 2 Others on 21 November, 2024

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:181652-DB
 
Court No. - 47
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20975 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Aniruddh Yadav @ Sunil Yadav And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,R.P. Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Surendra Singh-I,J.

1. Shri R.P. Mishra, Advocate has made a statement at the Bar that he has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 3 in the Registry on 18.11.2024, however, the same is not on record.

2. Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State as well as Sri R.P. Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

4. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 12.10.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 631 of 2024, under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 61(2), 352, 351(3) BNS 2023, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained inSection 35 of B.N.S.S.be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

5. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

6. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with.

7. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 21.11.2024

Pratima