Ganga Ram @ Ganga and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ganga Ram @ Ganga and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing prayer declined; conditional directions issued that any arrest of the petitioners under the FIR must strictly comply with S.35 B.N.S.S., Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the 28.01.2021 Vimal Kumar directions of this Court, and the Satender Kumar Antil directions dated 21.01.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR dated 27.09.2025 (Case Crime No. 0479 of 2025, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya, under Ss.115(2), 351(3) and 352 B.N.S., 2023) should be entertained. +1 more

Court's answer

The FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioners; therefore the prayer to quash the first information report cannot be entertained, and the Court is of the view that no interference is warranted, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra.

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences complained of are punishable with a term up to seven years, in case the petitioners are arrested in pursuance of the FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, the directions in this Court's judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, and the further directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of FIR dated 27.09.2025 (Case Crime No. 0479 of 2025) under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya, disposed of by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajiv Gupta and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ.) on November 4, 2025. The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioners, and relying on State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 315, declined interference. However, as all offences are punishable up to seven years, the Court directed that if the petitioners are arrested, authorities must strictly comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, the directions dated 28.01.2021 of this Court in Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147, and the Hon'ble Apex Court's directions dated 21.01.2025 in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10399 of 2025

Ganga Ram @ Ganga And Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

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

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ganga Prasad Mishra, Abhinav Mishra,
	Anil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 30

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

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

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 27.09.2025, being Case Crime No. 0479 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Inayat Nagar, District Ayodhya, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners 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

CRLP No. 10399 of 2025

2

view that no interference is warranted.

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 petitioners 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 (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.

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

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

November 4, 2025 Arvind

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench