Tarik and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

Tarik and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the FIR refused; petition finally disposed of with directions that the petitioners appear before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail (prayer to be considered per the settled law of Amrawati and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh); no coercive action for 60 days; coercive action if they fail to appear; no further time for surrender.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 17.05.2025 lodged in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025 (Police Station-Airport, District Prayagraj) under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(2), 288, 115(2) and 351(2) of B.N.S. discloses any offence against the petitioners and can validly be quashed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Court's answer

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage, it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners.

Ratio / Principle

The submissions made at the bar relate to disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India.

Key takeaways

At this stage only a prima facie case is to be seen, in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R.P. Kapur, State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. cases.ratio¶¶10
The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused.ratio¶¶11
In view of the entirety of facts and circumstances, it is directed that if the petitioners appear before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, their prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and the Apex Court judgement reported at 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) (Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 11193 of 2025 (Tarik and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Siddharth and Avnish Saxena, JJ), order dated 14.7.2025: Writ petition under Article 226 assailing the legality and validity of FIR dated 17.05.2025, Case Crime No. 76 of 2025 (Police Station-Airport, District Prayagraj), under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(2), 288, 115(2) and 351(2) of B.N.S. Court found on perusal of the record that it cannot be said no offence is made out against the petitioners; counsel's submissions concerned disputed questions of fact not adjudicable under article 226, to be judged prima facie in light of the law laid down in R.P. Kapur (A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866), State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 SCC (Cr.) 426), State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma (1992 SCC (Cr.) 192) and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. (Para-10) (2005 SCC (Cr.) 283). Prayer to quash the FIR refused; petition finally disposed of with directions to appear before the court below within 60 days and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, to be considered per Amrawati (2004 (57) ALR 290) and Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh (2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC)); no coercive action for 60 days, coercive action on failure to appear, and no further time for surrendering.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111916-DB

Court No. - 47

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11193 of 2025

Petitioner :- Tarik And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- Anand Sagar Shukla,G.A.

Hon'ble Siddharth,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.

Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Anand Sagar Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 as well as Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and perused the record.

By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are assailing the legality and validity of the FIR dated 17.05.2025 lodged in Case Crime No. 76 of 2025, under Sections 109, 191(2), 191(3), 190, 308(2), 288, 115(2) and 351(2) of B.N.S., Police Station-Airport, DistrictPrayagraj.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that no offence against the petitioners is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purpose of causing harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. At this stage, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners involve factual disputes and appraisal of evidence.

From the perusal of the material on record and looking into the facts of the case at this stage it cannot be said that no offence is made out against the petitioners at this stage. All the submissions made at the bar, relate to the disputed questions of fact, which

cannot be adjudicated upon by this Court under article 226 of Constitution of India. At this stage only prima facie case is to be seen in the light of the law laid down by Supreme Court in cases of R.P. Kapur Vs. State of Punjab, A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 866, State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, State of Bihar Vs. P.P.Sharma, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 192 and lastly Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. Vs. Mohd. Saraful Haq and another (Para-10) 2005 SCC (Cr.) 283 .

The prayer for quashing the FIR of the aforesaid case is refused. 9. However, in view of the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that in case the petitioners appear before the court below within 60 days from today and apply for bail/anticipatory bail, their prayer for bail/anticipatory bail shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P.

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is finally disposed of.

For the period of 60 days no coercive actions shall be taken against petitioners.

However, in case, the petitioners do not appear before the court below within the aforesaid period, coercive action shall be taken against them.

It is made clear that the petitioners will not be granted any further time by this Court for surrendering before the court below as directed above.

Order Date :- 14.7.2025 MN/-

(Avnish Saxena,J.) ( Siddharth,J.)

Digitally signed by :- MAHENDRA NATH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad