HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23093 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J. 1. Sri Mehdi Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has made a statement at the Bar that he has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 3 in the registry on 9.10.2025, however the same is not on record. 2. Office to trace out the same and place it on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mehdi Abbas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 4. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 31.8.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 374 of 2025, under Sections 352, 109(1) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station- Aurai, District-Bhadohi. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next 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 impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 7. Per contra, learned AGA as well as counsel for the first informant has submitted that on account of assault made by the petitioners, one Irfan has received injuries and has been medically examined. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ganesh Shankar Dubey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mehdi Abbas, Tipu Sultan Saif Ali And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) 8. Learned AGA as well as counsel for the first informant has next 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 315and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 9. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that on account of assault made by the petitioners, one Irfan has received injuries and has been medically examined and further in view of 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. 10. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused. 11. 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. 12. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. October 13, 2025 KU CRLP No. 23093 of 2025 2 (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad