Disposed¶20

Jagmohan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC28 Aug 2025CRLP/19038/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR quashing writ petition; interim no-coercive-action protection; Case Crime No.730 of 2025; Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly; Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S. 2023; Section 36 Aadhaar Act 2016; Aadhaar card forgery at e-services establishment; Sumit apprehended; counter affidavit three weeks rejoinder two weeks; police may approach Court on non-cooperation; Allahabad High Court August 28, 2025.

What did the court decide?

Interim relief: no coercive action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, whichever is earlier, subject to his co-operation in the investigation; upon non-co-operation the police may approach the Court. Petition kept pending for counter affidavits (three weeks) and rejoinder (two weeks thereafter). ¶20

Jagmohan vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Cheating and Forgery | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶20

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report dated 9.8.2025 (Case Crime No.730 of 2025, Police Station Izzatnagar, District Bareilly), registered under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 36 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, should be quashed. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Interim protection granted: till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, subject to his co-operation in the investigation; in the event of non-co-operation, the police may approach this Court.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Directions issued: respondents may file counter affidavits within three weeks; rejoinder affidavit, if any, within two weeks thereafter; matter to be listed thereafter.

¶16

Key takeaways

The Court expressly left open, as a matter of investigation, the question whether forged Aadhaar Cards were prepared at the petitioner's establishment.obiter¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 19038 of 2025, Allahabad High Court (Siddhartha Varma and Abdul Shahid, JJ.), decided August 28, 2025: petitioner Jagmohan, stated to be licensed for e-services including preparation of Aadhaar Cards, sought quashing of FIR dated 9.8.2025, Case Crime No.730 of 2025, PS Izzatnagar, District Bareilly, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 36 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, after an apprehended individual (Sumit) reportedly named him. Court granted interim immunity from coercive action till next listing or police-report submission (whichever earlier), conditioned on co-operation in investigation, failing which police may approach the Court; counters within three weeks, rejoinders two weeks thereafter; whether forged Aadhaar Cards were prepared at petitioner's establishment left to investigation.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 19038 of 2025

Jagmohan

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nitin Sharma, Pankaj Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 43

¶10

HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.

¶12

This writ petition has been filed seeking the quashing of the First Information Report dated 9.8.2025 registered as Case Crime No.730 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2) B.N.S., 2023 and Section 36 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, Police Station - Izzatnagar, District - Bareilly.

¶13

Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was licensed to give the e-services wherein the Aadhaar Card etc. were prepared. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that when some fraudulent Aadhaar Cards were being prepared and a particular individual by the name of Sumit was apprehended then he had mentioned the name of petitioner.

¶14

Matter requires consideration.

¶15

All the respondents are represented by the learned AGA.

¶16

The respondents may file counter affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks, thereafter.

¶17

List thereafter.

¶18

CRLP No. 19038 of 2025

¶19

¶20

Till the next date of listing or till submission of police report, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid impugned first information report subject to his co-operation in the investigation. In the event, petitioner does not co-operate in the investigation, the police may approach this Court.

¶21

It is a matter of investigation as to whether forged Aadhaar Cards were prepared at the establishment of the petitioner.

¶22

(Abdul Shahid,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

¶23

August 28, 2025

¶24

LN Tripathi

¶25

Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Jagmohan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagmohan v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Up vs Deepak

Siddhartha Narayan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Mrs. Bobby Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Arun Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Shahista Bano and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pramod Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others