Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6109-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 484 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sarafat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kiran Rani,Laloo Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J. 1. Heard Sri Laloo Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma, learned A.G.A for the State respondents. 2. The relief sought in this petition is for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 17.11.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 0764 of 2024 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109 BNS, Police Station Gajraula, District Amroha. Further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in the aforesaid case. 3. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner herein is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. It was further submitted that three accused persons, namely, Subhash, Surendra and Ravindra have been granted indulgence by a co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 27.11.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 21499 of 2024 (Subhash Singh and 2 others vs. State of UP and 3 others). The said order dated 27.11.2024 is quoted as under: "1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State- respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the first information report dated 17.11.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 764 of 2024. Still further the petitioners have prayed that the respondent authorities may not arrest the petitioners in Case Crime No. 764 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190 and 109 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Gajraula, District - Amroha. 3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while the first information report was being lodged, specific allegation was against the named accused persons namely Mahtab, Fasad, Nausad, Sharafat, Hashmuddin and Rahees and it was stated that they had assailed the injured with various weapons. However in the first information report, itself in the passing, it has just been mentioned that Subhash, Sundar and Ravindra were involved in the entire case. It is not even mentioned that the earlier named persons were hired by these three persons. 4. Matter requires consideration. 5. Respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 are represented by learned A.G.A. Issue notice to respondent no. 4. 6. Respondents may file counter affidavit within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 7. Till the next date of listing or the till the submission of police report, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners. " 4. We have gone through the aforesaid order annexed as Annexure 2 to the petition. We find that the co-ordinate Bench has granted relief to three named accused persons, namely, Subhash, Sundar and Ravindra on the ground that though their names have been mentioned in the first information report, however, it is nowhere reflected that they were involved in the entire case and that it is not even mentioned that earlier named persons which included the name of the petitioner were hired by these three persons. On this ground interim order as quoted above was granted. We further find that present accused Sarafat has been speficially named in the first information report and his specific role causing injury with deadly weapons has been assigned to him. There is specific allegation that serious injuries were caused to three persons and their conditions were serious.. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer for quashing of the FIR, which discloses cognizable offence. He, on instructions, submits that several persons have received injury. 5. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of cognizable offence. We do not find any good ground to grant indulgence or relief to the petitioner on the strength of the order dated 27.11.2024 as quoted above. 6. 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 :- 15.1.2025 Abhishek Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad