HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10286 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 30.09.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.0388/2025, under Section 109(1), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S. (old Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C.), Police Station- Lonikatra, District-Barabanki. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is wholly innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has next submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has submitted that on account of assault made by the petitioner accompanied with two others, three persons, namely, Amarjeet, Gagan and Anoop have received injuries by hard and blunt object and have been medically examined. He has further submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the petitioner, therefore, the impugned first information report can not be quashed in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mubarak .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the fact that on account of assault made by the petitioner accompanied with two others, by hard and blunt object, three persons, namely, Amarjeet, Gagan and Anoop have received injuries and have been medically examined as well as the allegations made in the first information report and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report can not be quashed, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused. 7. However in case, the petitioner files an application for anticipatory/regular bail before the appropriate court, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 8. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of. November 3, 2025 Arvind CRLP No. 10286 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench