HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9430 of 2025 Court No. - 10 HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the petitioners is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri Dheerendra Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Sri Ravindra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This petition has been filed seeking following main relief:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 21.09.2025 bearing F.I.R. No.0673/2025 i.e. Case Crime No.0673/2025 for the offences under Sections 109(1), 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S., lodged at Police Station Para, District Lucknow registered by Opposite Party No.3, as contained in Annexure No.1." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have wrongly and illegally been implicated on the basis of false and concocted story and there is no allegation of beating on the petitioners in the impugned F.I.R. He further submits that on the same date, another F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the complainant, in which, there is no allegation against the petitioners. However, on query, he fairly admits that there is a difference of two hours in both the incident, therefore, the contention, that second F.I.R. has been lodged by the mother of the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravindra Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kuldeep, Nagendra Singh Ankit Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko And Others .....Respondent(s) complainant and she has not alleged any allegations against the petitioners, therefore, allegations in the impugned F.I.R. are false, are misconceived and not tenable. 5. Learned A.G.A. and learned counsel for the respondent No.3 vehemently opposed the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and submit that there are severe injuries and the victim is still hospitalized in Apollo Hospital, Lucknow. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record as well as contents of the F.I.R., the commissioning of offence cannot be ruled out and the plea that the petitioners were only instigator is a matter of investigation. Thus, no case for interference is made out in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani; (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others; (2021) SCC Online SC 315. 7. In view of above, the present petition is dismissed. October 13, 2025 Saurabh CRLP No. 9430 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench