Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 93593 (ALL)

ANUJ KOHLI AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

CRLP/20000/2025 · 2025-09-08

Salil Kumar Rai, Zafeer Ahmad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20000 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. Vakalatnama field by Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 4 is taken on record. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and Sri Anil Kumar Dubey, the counsel for respondent no. 4. The present petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- "i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction to quash in Case Crime No. 140 of 2025 under Section 316(2), 115 (2), 352 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station Delhi Gate, District-Meerut. ii. Issue a writ, order, or directions in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to adopt any coercive method, or not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of Case Crime No. 140 of 2025 under Section 316(2), 115 (2), 352 of B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Delhi Gate, District- Meerut." 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 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 petitioners 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Bhushan, Sushant Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Anuj Kohli And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) 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. September 9, 2025 Satyam CRLP No. 20000 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATYAM AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad