Gajendra Kushwah vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11346 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gajendra Kushwah vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others on 9 October, 2025

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:179307-DB
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22929 of 2025   
 
   Gajendra Kushwah    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Rajesh Kumar Singh   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
G.A.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 47
 
   
 
 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.  

HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1, 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the F.I.R. dated 27.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 24 of 2025, under Section 303 (2) BNSS, Police Station- Nai Ki Mandi, District- Nagar (Commissionerate Agra), but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence, complained of, is 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.

4. We have perused the F.I.R., which prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Apex Court in 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. As such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

5. However, considering the fact that the offence complained of in the impugned FIR, is punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner pursuant to 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 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.

6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands finally disposed of.

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

October 9, 2025

YK