SMT. NUTAN SHARMA AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/21193/2025 · 2025-09-18
Salil Kumar Rai, Zafeer Ahmad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 97788 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 97788 (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. - 21193 of 2025 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, Additional Government Advocate representing respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Sri Rajiv Tiwari, counsel for respondent no.4. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 12.08.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 396 of 2025, under Sections 85, 351(2) of B.N.S., 2023 and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Sasni Gate, District Aligarh. It has been stated by the Additional Government Advocate and Sri Rajiv Tiwari representing respondent nos. 1 to 4 that the petition be decided on the basis of documents annexed with the petition itself. 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 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 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhuvnesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Rajiv Tiwari Smt. Nutan Sharma And 3 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)
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 19, 2025 n.u.
CRLP No. 21193 of 2025 2 (Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- NASEEM UDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad