RINKU LAMBARDAR @ RAVINDRA KUMAR AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/1539/2025 · 2025-01-24
Rajiv Gupta, Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10790 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 10790 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12818-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1539 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rinku Lambardar @ Ravindra Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 15.12.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 410 of 2024, under Sections 303(2), 324(4), 125, 352, 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 4/21 Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, Police Station Jewar, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments. 3. We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 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 as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. 4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned first information report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned first information report, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated
28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs.
State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with. 5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.1.2025 SY Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad