Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home ... on 17 November, 2025
Author: Rajiv Gupta
Bench: Rajiv Gupta, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:73968-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10849 of 2025
Raghvendra Mishra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Pankaj Kumar Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 30
HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 30.10.2025, bearing Case Crime No. 0272 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015), Police Station Subeha, District Barabanki, 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 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 First Information Report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the First Information Report 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 First Information Report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned First Information Report, 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 judgment 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. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)
November 17, 2025
kkv/
