Bal Govind @ Govind And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4904 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Bal Govind @ Govind And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 11 February, 2025

Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:19730-DB
 
Court No. - 42
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1866 of 2025
 
Petitioner :- Bal Govind @ Govind And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
 

 
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 31.12.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 425 of 2024, under sections 115 (2), 352, 351 (2) and 333 of Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita, Police Station Soraon, District Prayagraj, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only 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/ Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagarik 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 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/ Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagarik 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.

Order Date :- 11.2.2025

NLY