Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:62778-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1368 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pramila And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jagadish Prasad Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Janardan Yadav,G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court, is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State, Shri Janardan Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and perused the record. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 5.1.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No. 02 of 2025, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement at the Bar that he does not want to press this writ petition on behalf of petitioner nos. 1 and 3 and the same may be dismissed as withdrawn. 5. In view thereof, the instant writ petition, qua petitioner nos. 1 and 3, is dismissed as withdrawn. So far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against him, and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 6. Per contra, learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 have submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the petitioner no. 2, therefore, the impugned first information report can not be quashed in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others. 7. Having considered the rival submission made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and the relevant law cited by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence against petitioner no. 2, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report can not be quashed. 8. The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is, therefore, refused. 9. However in case, the petitioner no. 2 moves an application for anticipatory bail/ regular bail before the appropriate court, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 10. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 HR Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad