Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55786-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6555 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt Sheela Devi And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Pandey,Ram Yash Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- Akash Singh,G.A.,Santosh Kumar Singh,Shivam Singh Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State, Sri Akash Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners are wholly innocent and have been falsely implicated in the present case due to ulterior motive. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has next submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioners, as such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has vehemently opposed the said prayer. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 has produced a copy of the injury report of Prem Singh, brother of the first informant, wherein the doctor has found fracture of parietal bone caused to the victim. 6. Learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against the petitioners, 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. 7. Having considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by learned AGA for the State as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence against the petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned first information report can not be quashed, therefore, the prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is refused. 8. However in case, the petitioners move an application for anticipatory bail/ regular bail before the appropriate court, their bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is finally disposed of. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 Puspendra Digitally signed by :- PUSPENDRA NARAYAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad