Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69689-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8048 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sachin And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anubhav Kumar Vats,Ashish Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Anil Kumar-X,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents and perused the material brought on the record. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 13.04.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0075 of 2025, under Sections 191 (2), 115 (2), 351 (2), 352, 333 and 109 of B.N.S.S., P.S. - Holagarh, District- Prayagraj. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioners in the aforesaid case. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states as first and second petitioners were already arrested hence, he is not pressing relief for the petitioner no.1 and 2 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. It is also requested that the petitioner no.9 is inclined to withdraw the instant writ petition and leave may be accorded to him to institute the fresh writ petition. 4. He vehemently contended that in the alleged incident the petitioners have also received injuries and they were never the aggressors. It is also alleged that the petitioners do not have other criminal antecedents. 5. Per contra learned A.G.A. submits that the date of incident is 12.04.2025 and the alleged medical reports which is appended and relied upon by the petitioners is prepared on 16.04.2025 with inordinate delay. Admittedly, it cannot be disputed that there were no such allegations as both the sides have sustained serious injuries and as the cognizable offences is made out and investigation is going as such at the midst of the investigation, no indulgence is required otherwise the same would mark the investigation. 6. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 7. We have perused the First Information Report, which prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. The correctness of the allegations would have to be tested on the basis of the materials collected during the course of investigation and, 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. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed. 9. Once the Court declined to accord interim relief in favour of the petitioners as well as to quash the impugned F.I.R., learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly conceded that he does not want to press the instant petition and the same may be dismissed as not pressed. However, leave may be accorded to the petitioners to move application for bail/anticipatory bail before the appropriate forum. 10. Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondents does not have any objection to the same. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed with the liberty as prayed for. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Neeraj Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad