Allahabad High Court
Sohan Lal And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of ... on 12 February, 2025
Author: Vivek Chaudhary
Bench: Vivek Chaudhary
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9089-DB
Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 970 of 2025
Petitioner :- Sohan Lal And 3 Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Prakash Chaurasia
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.
Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.
1. Heard Shri Vijay Prakash Chaurasia, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State/opposite parties and perused the record.
2. This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 16.07.2024, bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No.0213 of 2024, for the offence under Sections 74, 115, 332 (C) 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), registered at Police Station Makhi, District Unnao.
3. First submission of counsel for petitioners is that there is a civil dispute between the parties and not a criminal dispute. Admittedly, the petitioners themselves have lodged the NCR and the FIR has been lodged by respondent nos.5 against the petitioners. As per averments both in the NCR and the FIR, a fight took place between the parties in which they had beaten each other. Thus, on the face it, a criminal offence occurred on the spot for which the criminal proceedings have been initiated by both the parties. Therefore, there is no force in the first submission of counsel for the petitioners.
4. The second submission of counsel for the petitioners is with regard to alibi of the petitioners. It is claimed that they were not on the spot and were working at different places and all the documents of alibi filed before this Court are with regard to private persons and hence, validity of the same could only be looked into at the stage of trial and not by this court in the writ petition.
5. The third submission of the counsel for the petitioners is that the same Investigating Officer should investigate both the NCR and the FIR. For the said purposes, the petitioners is permitted to make a representation before the respondent no.2, Superintendent of Police, Unnao, who shall look into the grievance of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences as alleged in F.I.R. have maximum punishment for the term less than seven years imprisonment, whereas, the police is trying to arrest them, which is against the mandates of B.N.S.S., 2023.
7. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) shall be strictly followed in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another.
8. Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioners states that let this petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts.
9. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and the law as laid down by Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra).
Order Date :- 12.2.2025
Pks
( Brij Raj Singh, J.) ( Vivek Chaudhary, J.)
