Vacharam And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 8663 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vacharam And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 April, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:48748-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6212 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Vacharam And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Pal,Yadvendra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Deepak Kumar,G.A.,Himanshu Yadav,Shubham Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
 

Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 20.03.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0188 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) BNS 2023, Police Station Sahavar, District Kasganj, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all offences, complained of, are punishable only upto seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences 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 cases 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.

4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of, in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term upto seven 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 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of Cr.PC/Section 35 (3) to 35 (7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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.

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

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)

Order Date :- 5.4.2025

A. Pandey