Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 78877 (ALL)

PRINCE RAWAT v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/16261/2025 · 2025-08-11

Abdul Shahid, Siddhartha Varma

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136534-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16261 of 2025 Petitioner :- Prince Rawat Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Baijant Kumar Mishra,Mayank Tiwari,Shiv Shankar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- Devesh Mishra,G.A.,Jainendra Pandey Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Abdul Shahid,J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the prayer clause during the course of the day. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jainendra Pandey, learned counsel for the first-informant and the learned AGA for the State. 3. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 10.5.2025 as Case Crime No.184 of 2025, under Sections 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station -Phoolpur, District - Prayagraj, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under section Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 4. We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses 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. 5. We are of the view that no interference is warranted. 6. However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273. 7. It is expected of the police not to harass the petitioner till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 LN Tripathi Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad