Imran vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4547 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Imran vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 14 August, 2025

Author: Rajiv Gupta

Bench: Rajiv Gupta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:139105-DB
 
Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17858 of 2025
 

 
Petitioner :- Imran
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Chandra Dwivedi,Vivek Kumar Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
 

Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J.

1. Sri Ashish Goyal, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 4 today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashish Goyal, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 15.7.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 54 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, Police Station- Nai Ki Mandi, District- Agra, 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 in Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 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 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 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 :- 14.8.2025

KU