Sohan Lal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4336 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sohan Lal vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 8 August, 2025

Bench: Rajiv Gupta, Pramod Kumar Srivastava

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134336-DB
 
Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17398 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Sohan Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.

1. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 has filed a short counter affidavit today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State, Shri Aditya Verma, learned counsel for respondent no.5 and perused the record.

3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR arising out of Case Crime No. 32 of 2025, under Sections 75(2) BNS 2023 and Section 9/10 of POCSO Act, 2012, Police Station Khuldabad, District Prayagraj, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, 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.

4. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner 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.

5. 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 petitioner 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, and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

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

Order Date :- 8.8.2025

Subham