Daya Shankar Tiwari @ Daya Shankar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Daya Shankar Tiwari @ Daya Shankar and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the FIR declined; writ petition disposed of with the direction that, in case of arrest of the petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR, the authorities shall strictly comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the directions in Vimal Kumar (2021 (2) ACR 1147) and the Satender Kumar Antil directions (order dated 21.01.2025).

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 31.10.2025 (Case Crime No. 498 of 2025, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The first information report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioners; consequently the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, and no interference is warranted.

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences in the impugned FIR are punishable with a term up to seven years, if the petitioners are arrested in pursuance of that FIR, the respondents/authorities must strictly comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the directions in Vimal Kumar (Crl. Misc. W.P. No. 17732 of 2020, decided 28.01.2021) and the directions in Satender Kumar Antil (order dated 21.01.2025).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Rajiv Gupta and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, JJ.), declined to quash FIR dated 31.10.2025 in Case Crime No. 498 of 2025, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, under Sections 191(2), 329, 352, 304(2) and 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, holding that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and the quashing prayer cannot be entertained in view of 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. However, since all offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the Court directed that, in case of arrest pursuant to the FIR, the authorities strictly comply with Section 35 of the B.N.S.S., the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others), 2021 (2) ACR 1147, and the directions in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI (order dated 21.01.2025). Writ petition disposed of on November 18, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 10920 of 2025

Daya Shankar Tiwari @ Daya Shankar And Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vaibhav Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Tiwari 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 31.10.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 498 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 329, 352, 304(2), 351(3) of B.N.S. and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali Dehat, District Gonda, 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. 10920 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.

November 18, 2025 Nadim

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

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