SAMAR BAHADUR YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/20181/2025 · 2025-09-23
Abdul Shahid, Siddhartha Varma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 94027 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 94027 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20181 of 2025 Court No. - 43 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Ms.Pooja Yadav, Advocate, has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.3 in Court today. The same is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.Pooja Yadav, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 and the learned AGA for the State.
3. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 16.5.2025 as Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, under Sections 281, 106(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Mau, District - Chitrakoot, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balbir Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Samar Bahadur Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
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. September 24, 2025 LN Tripathi CRLP No. 20181 of 2025 2 (Abdul Shahid,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad