HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20640 of 2025 Court No. - 42 HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Abhishek Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned AGA appearing for the State respondents and Sri Subhash Singh, holding brief of Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, learned counsel for the informant whose vakalatnama filed today is taken on record. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned FIR dated 14.8.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 272 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 318(4), 308(2) and 351(2) BNS, P.S. New Agra, District Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that other co-accused has already been granted relief by this Court vide order dated 12.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20510 of 2025(Satya Prakash Kothari vs. State of UP and others) and therefore, present petition may also be disposed of in the same terms. 4. The said judgement dated 12.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20510 of 2025(Satya Prakash Kothari vs. State of UP and others) is quoted hereinunder:- "Vakalatnama filed by Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, Advocate on behalf of informant/respondent no. 3 is taken on record. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the A.G.A. for the State and Sri Pankaj Dwivedi, counsel for the informant. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 14.8.2025 registered as Case Crime No.272 of 2025, under Section 316(2), 318(4), 308(2) and 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station New Agra, District Agra. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of offence and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Mishra, Vijay Kumar Pathak Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashutosh Pandey, G.A. Krishna Kumar Kothari .....Petitioner(s) The State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of." 5. Consequently, the present petition is also disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgement dated 12.9.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20510 of 2025(Satya Prakash Kothari vs. State of UP and others) as quoted above. September 15, 2025 Abhishek CRLP No. 20640 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Vivek Kumar Birla,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad