SHIVAM MISHRA @ VIJAY KUMAR AND 4 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/22358/2025 · 2025-10-05
Achal Sachdev, Siddhartha Varma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 102427 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 102427 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22358 of 2025 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J. Criminal Misc. Exemption Application No.01 of 2025
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The petitioners are exempted from filing the certified copy of the first information report dated 17.09.2025.
3. The application is, accordingly, allowed.
Order on Petition
4. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 17.09.2025 as Case Crime No.0075 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 190, 121, 132, 352 of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station - Narwal, District - Commissionerate Kanpur Nagar, but at the time when the matter is taken up
learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
5. We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girja Shanker Mishra, Pratiksha Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shivam Mishra @ Vijay Kumar And 4 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
6. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
7. However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are
directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
8. It is expected of the Police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 6, 2025 Zafar CRLP No. 22358 of 2025 2 (Achal Sachdev,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad