HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22058 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sarvesh Chaubey, learned counsel for respondent No. 4, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 14.5.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 130 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 333, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 74 and 77 of B.N.S. (subsequent added section 7/8 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Tharwai, District- Prayagraj. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, whatsoever, is disclosed against the petitioners and, as such, the impuigned first information report is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie offence, complained of is clearly disclosed against the petitioners and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme 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 in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhay Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rakesh Chaturvedi, Sarvesh Chaubey Virendar Yadav @ Baba And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report cannot be quashed. 6. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused. 7. However, in case the petitioners files an application for anticipatory/regular bail before the appropriate court, their bail application be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, keeping in mind the fact that the anticipatory bail of the co-accused has already been granted by this Court. 8. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. October 9, 2025 KU CRLP No. 22058 of 2025 2 (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad