AKASH KUMAR UPADHYAY @ RAJAN AND 5 OTHERS v. State of UP AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/20090/2024 · 2025-04-10
Siddhartha Varma, Vipin Chandra Dixit
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 106586 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 106586 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:53865-DB Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20090 of 2024 Petitioner :- Akash Kumar Upadhyay @ Rajan And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kr Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Amrendra Pratap Singh,G.A. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 07.10.2024 as Case Crime No. 0462 of 2024, under Sections 498A, 147, 323 I.P.C. and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station - Shivpur, District - Varanasi but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to grant of protection under section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure.
3. The case was mentioned early in the morning. Thereafter,
learned counsel for the respondents has informed that the petitioners were required to deposit a sum of Rs 35,000/- with the Medication and Conciliation Centre, High court Allahabad but the said amount has not been deposited till 09.02.2025. 4.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.
5. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
6. However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present, 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 as well as
of a division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Vimal Kumar and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025 sailesh (Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- SAILESH PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad