HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11790 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1 to 3 and Shri Rajesh Singh, learned counsel, who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4 which is taken on record. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. No.415/2025 dated 19.11.2025 registered under Sections 190, 191(2), 191(3), 119(1), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 324(4) of BNS, 2023, Police Station Raniganj, District Pratapgarh. 3. The grounds taken by the petitioner in order to challenge the aforesaid FIR are that (a) respondent no.4, who has lodged the impugned FIR, has got no right to the property as indicated in the FIR, (b) no offences as have been indicated in the FIR are made out against the petitioner, (c) the alleged victim has not received any grievious injury and (d) once the property does not even belong to the complainant consequently there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to have exerted pressure on respondent no.4 for the said property. 4. Consideration on the grounds as urged by the petitioner would patently amount to holding of a mini-trial which has specifically been restrained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287. 5. Further, keeping in view the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Sandeep Kumar Dubey @ Santosh Dubey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others etc.-2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170, wherein it has been held that once from bare perusal of the FIR certain offence is made out consequently there cannot be any occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter and pass any order more particularly when the FIR at the outset is not capable of being quashed. 6. For the sake of convenience, the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra) are reproduced as under (paragraph 6 and 7) :- "6. The High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR and yet granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons, i.e., the private respondents herein, till after filing of the charge sheet which, in our opinion, has caused a grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. There is neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction. 7. It cannot be denied that provisions of pre-arrest bail are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance. To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible as has been held by this Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021)19 SCC 401. "22. As observed by this Court in Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. [Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 363], though the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438CrPC CRLP No. 11790 of 2025 2 proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand whenever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified. However, such a blanket interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps" cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner. 23. So far as the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" till the final report/charge-sheet is filed and/or during the course of investigation or not to arrest till the investigation is completed, passed while dismissing the quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly impermissible." 7. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. December 15, 2025 A. Katiyar CRLP No. 11790 of 2025 3 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench