RAMAKANT YADAV AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/10195/2025 · 2025-05-18
Madan Pal Singh, Siddhartha Varma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58922 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 58922 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:83511-DB Court No. - 44 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10195 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramakant Yadav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Amitabh Tripathi,G.A.,Manendra Kumar Agrahari Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Madan Pal Singh,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 21.04.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.96 of 2025, under Section 115(2), 352, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Police Station - Tiwaripur, District - Gorakhpur but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. Learned counsel who appears for the respondent no.3 has stated that the charge-sheet has been submitted by the police in the instant case which information he has received by an application filed under the Right to Information Act. The same is taken on record.
4. In any view of the matter, the offences alleged in the first information report are punishable by punishment which are seven years or below that.
5. Under such circumstances, the First Information Report, which prima facie discloses commissioning of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.
6. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
7. However, considering the fact that all offences mentioned in the present case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
8. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. (Madan Pal Singh, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) Order Date :- 19.5.2025 Shiv Digitally signed by :- SHIV KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad