Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109554-DB Court No. - 46 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 14572 of 2025 Petitioner :- Danish Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Ishraque Farooqui Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Harvir Singh,J. 1. Sri Sunder Singh, Advocate has filed vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no. 4 today in Court, which is taken on record. 2. Heard Sri M.I. Farooqui, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kapil Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Sri Sunder Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 3. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 02.04.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 45 of 2025, under Sections 109, 333, 351(2), 351(3) and 352 of Bahrtiya Nyaya Sanhita, P.S. Kakrauli, District-Muzaffarnagar. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, no offence whatsoever is disclosed against the petitioner and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A., as well as learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 submitted that on account of firing made by the petitioner, Shaan Mohammad has suffered injury and he has been medically examined. They further submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie offence, complained of, is clearly disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case 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 Criminal Appeal No. 569-570 of 2022, Shraddha Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & others 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. 6. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report cannot be quashed. 7. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused. 8. However, in case the petitioner files an application for anticipatory/regular bail before the trial court, his bail application be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Faridul Digitally signed by :- FAREEDUL HASAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad