SONVEER SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/6332/2025 · 2025-04-06
Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37500 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 37500 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:50052-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6332 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sonveer Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kuamr Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; Shri Paritosh Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Shri Paritosh Malviya, learned AGA-1 for State respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned FIR dated 25.03.2025 being Case Crime No.227 of 2025 under Sections 316 (2), 318 (4) BNS, P.S. Banna Devi, Distt. Aligarh and for a direction to respondents not to arrest the petitioner pursuant to impugned FIR.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the informant has raised objection qua the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction with concealment of material fact. It is contended that the first petitioner has criminal antecedent of three cases, whereas second petitioner has 22 criminal cases to his credit but they have not divulged the same in the writ petition just to obtain exparte order and as such the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. Learned counsel for the informant, in support of his
submissions, has placed reliance on the order dated 03.04.2025 in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.1400 of 2025 (Munnesh v. State of U.P.).
4. Confronted with this, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is not inclined to press the writ petition.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we dismiss the writ petition as not pressed with a cost of Rs.5000/- to be deposited by the petitioners within six weeks and shall be paid to the Bar Council of U.P. In case the amount in question is not deposited within stipulated period, the District Magistrate is directed to recover the same as arrears of land revenue. (Prashant Kumar,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
Order Date :- 7.4.2025 SP/ Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad