AYODHYA PRASAD AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/22953/2025 · 2025-10-08
Ajay Kumar Ii, Rajeev Misra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 103803 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 103803 (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. - 22953 of 2025 Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard Mr. Anurag Singh Yadav, Advocate Holding Brief of Mr. Ray Sahab Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate, representing State respondents 1, 2 and
3.
2. Although, prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report, registered on 07.08.2025 as Case Crime No. 0247 of 2025, under Sections 281, 125(a) and 125(b) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Machhalishahr, District - Jaunpur but, at the time, when the matter is taken up, the learned counsel for petitioners confines the relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. We have perused 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.
4. We are of the view that no interference is warranted. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ray Sahab Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ayodhya Prasad And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
5. 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, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
6. 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.
7. This writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. October 9, 2025 Prashant D.
CRLP No. 22953 of 2025 2 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad