Mahesh Ojha @ Bhola Ojha and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mahesh Ojha @ Bhola Ojha and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

FIR not quashed; writ petition disposed of with the direction that if the petitioners are arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR, the authorities shall ensure compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, and the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 09.12.2024 (Case Crime No. 664 of 2024, P.S. Bairia, District Ballia) registered against the petitioners under B.N.S, 2023 and I.P.C. provisions is liable to be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners; therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315, and no interference is warranted.

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences in the impugned FIR are punishable with a term up to seven years, in case of arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Apex Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and the directions in the order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court in Vimal Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P. (2021 (2) ACR 1147).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Prashant Kumar, JJ.), by order dated 8.1.2025 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 23973 of 2024, declined to quash the FIR dated 09.12.2024 (Case Crime No. 664 of 2024, P.S. Bairia, District Ballia) under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 110 and 76 of B.N.S, 2023 and sections 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha), 3(2)(Va) and 3(1)(w)(i) I.P.C., observing that the FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offences and the prayer to quash cannot be entertained, relying on State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315. As all offences were punishable up to seven years, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners shall be preceded/attended by strict compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and 41-A CrPC / Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, and the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P. (2021 (2) ACR 1147). Petition disposed of.

Court No. - 42

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23973 of 2024

Petitioner :- Mahesh Ojha @ Bhola Ojha And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devottam Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

Heard Shri Devottam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State respondent.

The instant writ petition has been filed to quash the impugned F.I.R. dated 09.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 664 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3), 333, 110 and 76 of B.N.S, 2023 and section 3(1)(Da), 3(1) (Dha), 3(2)(Va) and 3(1)(w)(i) I.P.C., Police Station Bairia, District Ballia.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that offences, complained of, are punishable only up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences against the petitioners and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR 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.

However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it

is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 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 judgement 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 , be strictly complied with.

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

Order Date :- 8.1.2025 Bhanu

Digitally signed by :- BHANU PRATAP KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad