SACHCHIDA NAND RAI AND 9 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
CRLP/16699/2025 · 2025-08-07
Abdul Shahid, Siddhartha Varma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 79497 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 79497 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134567-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 16699 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sachchida Nand Rai And 9 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Azhar Hussain,Shaban Ahmad Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Abdul Shahid,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and Sri Navneet Kumar Mishra, Advocate who has filed his vakalatnama today itself on behalf of respondent no.4. It may be kept on record.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 27.6.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.246 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 76 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and section 3(1)(da), 3(1)(dha), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Police Station - Jamania, District - Ghazipur but at the time when the matter is taken up
learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to grant of protection under section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
3. We have perused the 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.
4. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
5. 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.
6. It is expected of the police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners shall co-operate in the investigation.
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025 GS (Abdul Shahid, J.) (Siddhartha Varma, J.) Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad