Disposed

Shyama Prasad Majumder v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC26 Nov 2025/577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Allahabad refused to quash a FIR but directed that if the petitioner is arrested for offences punishable up to seven years, authorities must strictly comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and relevant apex court guidelines.

What did the court decide?

Direction to comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and arrest guidelines in case of petitioner's arrest; petition disposed of.

Shyama Prasad Majumder Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 577 of 2025

¶3

Shyama Prasad Majumder

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Amir Khan, Sheelam Devi, Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 30

¶10

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 31.05.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 082 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. & Section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Lucknow, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

¶13

We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report 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.

¶14

However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned first information report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020

¶15

CRLP No. 577 of 2025

¶16

¶17

(Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 , and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of .

¶19

November 26, 2025 Haseen U.

¶20

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shyama Prasad Majumder v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyama Prasad Majumder v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vikash and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. and Others

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Shiv Pratap Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Others

Satyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Swapnil Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 7 Others

Pratiksha Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others