HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18412 of 2025 Court No. - 46 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE RAJIV LOCHAN SHUKLA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State, and perused the record. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer to quash the FIR dated 30.07.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 445 of 2025, under Sections 351(2), 64(1), 308(2) of B.N.S. and 67 of I.T. Act, Police Station Raunapar, District Azamgarh. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioners and as such, the impugned first information report is liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA has submitted that the allegations against the petitioner is that he befriended the complainant/respondent no.4 via Instagram and they started talking via phone call and video call. The petitioner took private screen-shot of the complainant while video calling and demanded Rs.5 lac, otherwise he will leak out the private photographs of the complainant. It is also alleged that the petitioner called the complainant to Baghpat in a hotel where he committed rape and threatened her that he has her private videos. If she tries to tell about the said incident to anyone, he may leak out the same. It is also alleged that victim paid Rs.80,000/- to the accused petitioner. 5. Learned AGA further submitted that from the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie offence is clearly disclosed against Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Birendra Singh, Swati Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Mahtab .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) the petitioners, therefore, the impugned first information report can not be quashed in view of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex 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 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 submission made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the FIR that the petitioner befriended the complainant/respondent no.4 via Instagram and started talking via phone call and video call and had taken her private screen-shot while video calling and demanded Rs.5 lac, otherwise he will leak out the same, and further that the petitioner called the complainant to Baghpat in a hotel where he committed rape and threatened her that he has her private videos and if she tries to tell about the said incident to anyone, he may leak out the same, to which, the victim paid Rs.80,000/- to the accused-petitioner and the relevant law cited by learned AGA as well as learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence against the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report can not be quashed. 7. The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is therefore refused. 8. However in case, the petitioner moves an application for anticipatory bail/regular bail before the appropriate court, his bail application shall be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of. September 15, 2025 Kushal CRLP No. 18412 of 2025 2 (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad