Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40178-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5218 of 2025 Petitioner :- Narendra @ Sunil Kumar And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 15.1.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 3 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(1), 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Iradat Nagar, District Agra. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in the present case the prosecution has not explained the injuries sustained by the petitioner side and, therefore, there is suppression of material facts in the present case. It is next submitted that in fact the informant side was the assailant in the present case and they have come to place of the petitioner and started assault and Urmila Devi, Santara and Pradeep were injured from the petitioners' side and they have suffered injuries and to save their skin present criminal prosecution has been lodged. By drawing attention to paragraph 12 of the petition it is submitted that Urmila died due to injuries suffered by her in the incident dated 12.1.2025. It is next pointed out that Urmila has filed a first information report dated 24.1.2025 in respect of the same incident registered as Case Crime No. 07 of 2025. Submission, therefore, is that the present criminal prosecution is nothing but a counterblast only and the same is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. 5. We find that the incident is admitted and only cross version is being presented by the petitioner side. We find that injuries were suffered by both sides and one person had died and, therefore, a cognizable offence is made out and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are nothing but their defence, which requires investigation. 6. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918 and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati & another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made out for interference with the impugned first information report. 7. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Lalit Shukla Digitally signed by :- LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad