Aadya And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4546 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Aadya And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 14 August, 2025

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139094-DB
 
Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17854 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Aadya And 12 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Prabodh Dubey,Ashok Kumar Giri
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition.

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

3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 7.3.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Sections-3(1) (r) and 3(1) (s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kuber Sthan, District Kushi Nagar, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC 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 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 case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others (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 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 CrPC and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (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 :- 14.8.2025

HR