HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22736 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE DEVENDRA SINGH-I, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State, Sri Nikhil Pathak, learned counsel for respondent no.4 and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the impugned first information report dated 8.8.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0162 of 2025, under Sections 61(2), 140(2), 308(6), 351(3) of B.N.S. & Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Rajghat, District Gorakhpur. 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. He 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. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied upon on order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20555 of 2025 (Shubham Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) wherein arrest of the petitioners has already been stayed by this Court. 4. In view thereof, it is prayed that the petitioner is also entitled for similar indulgence. 5. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has vehemently opposed the said prayer and has pointed out that the Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.20555 of 2025, which is being relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner has already been dismissed Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharmendra Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Pandey, G.A., Nikil Pathak Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) today by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. It has been 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 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. 5. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by learned AGA for the State and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner and noting the submissions made by the learned AGA as well as respondent no.4 and keeping in mind that the writ petition challenging the impugned FIR by the co-accused has already been dismissed by this Court, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report can not be quashed, consequently, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused. 6. The instant writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. October 14, 2025 S. Singh CRLP No. 22736 of 2025 2 (Devendra Singh-I,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAVITA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad