Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:20432-DB Court No. - 47 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2608 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mahendra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 23.01.2025 lodged in Case Crime No.7 of 2025, under Sections- 111(2)(b), 111(3), 111(4) B.N.S, Police Station- Ramraj, District-Muzaffar Nagar. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner no.1 is aged about 82 years. He has criminal history of five cases but all the cases are old cases of 2018. Petitioner no.2 has been falsely implicated. Although learned AGA points out criminal history of four cases, which include one old case and three recent cases. 4. From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioner no.2 at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283. 5. The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused. 6. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioner no.2 (Sukhrinder) appears before the court below within 60 days from today and applies for bail/anticipatory bail, his prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. 7. With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of with regard to petitioner no.2 (Sukhrinder). 8. However, in case, the petitioner no.2 does not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against him. 9. It is made clear that the petitioner no.2 will not be granted any further time by this Court for appearing before the court below as directed above. 10. With regard to petitioner no.1 following order is passed: 11. Petition is disposed of directing that till cognizance is taken on police report under Section 193(3) B.N.S.S., by the court the respondents shall not arrest the petitioner no.1 (Mahendra), respectively pursuant to the aforesaid First Information Report dated 23.01.2025, subject to cooperation in ongoing investigation. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 SS Digitally signed by :- SURENDER SINGH NARANG High Court of Judicature at Allahabad