Allahabad High Court
Ashok Dubey vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 15 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80490-DB
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9797 of 2025
Petitioner :- Ashok Dubey
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Jeet Yeadav,Prince Kumar,Rajkumari Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.
1. Heard Sri Prince Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anuj Kumar Misra, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent.
2. On perusal of record, we find that earlier the petitioner herein namely Ashok Dubey, who is father of Amitesh Dubey had approached this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3295 of 2025 (Amitesh Dubey and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), which was dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2025. The said order is quoted as under:-
" 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement at the Bar that he does not want to press this writ petition and seeks to withdraw it at this stage.
4. In view of the above statement, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn at this stage."
3. This Court has asked learned counsel for the petitioner to produce a copy of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3295 of 2025 (Amitesh Dubey and Another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) as the prayer clause of the said writ petition has not been quoted in the aforesaid order.
4. On perusal of copy of aforesaid writ petition, it appears that said writ petition was filed with the following prayers:-
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 and 3 to take appropriate departmental disciplinary action against authorities of the Police Station-Sukhpura, District Ballia accountable for non-registration of case in pursuance of information of cognizable offence provided on 12.07.2024 at 3.30 P.M. through telephonic communication and later on through application dated 14.07.2024.
ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent no. 3 (Superintendent of Police, Ballia, District Ballia) to decide the representation dated 31.07.2024 (appended as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition).
iii) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem filt and proper in the circumstances of the case.
iv) award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
5. We find that the present writ petition is a second writ petition for the same cause of action whereas in the first paragraph of the present writ petition, it has been mentioned that this is the first Criminal Misc. Writ Petition before this Court for the same cause of action. The aforesaid statement is absolutely incorrect, and therefore, the present writ petition would not be maintainable and amounts to abuse of process of law. That apart, perusal of Annexure No. 5 of the said writ petition, we find that petitioner along with his son Amitesh Dubey has filed one Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12441 of 2024 challenging the First Information Report dated 13.07.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0226 of 2024, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2024, which is quoted as under:-
"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 13.7.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 0226 of 2024, under Sections 74, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of BNS 2023, Police Station Sukhpura, District Ballia, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. 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 the cognizable offence 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 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 7 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 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, be strictly complied with.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. "
6. We find that one criminal proceeding is also standing against the petitioner, therefore the present petition is nothing but an abuse of process of law. In the earlier petition also, the present petitioner Ashok Dubey was the petitioner no. 2 and Sri Chandra Jeet Yadav and Sri Prince Kumar were appearing for the petitioners as their counsel, and therefore counsel for petitioner is also aware about filing of earlier writ petition and present writ petition also.
8. Taking a lenient view, no action is being proposed against the petitioner and the present petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) upon the petitioner, which the petitioner shall deposit with the Registrar General of this Court within a period of one month from today. On deposit of such cost, it shall be transmitted to the account of 'High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad'. If the petitioner fails to deposit the cost of Rs.5000/-, the Registrar General of this Court shall inform the District Magistrate, Ballia, for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue, who shall after recovering the said amount from the petitioner, transmit it to the Registrar General of this Court for depositing in the account of 'High Court Legal Services Committee, Allahabad' within a further period of three months.
Order Date :- 15.5.2025
VS
