Jayram Maurya and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jayram Maurya and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the FIR declined; writ petition disposed of with a direction that any arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of the impugned FIR be preceded by strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar (2021 (2) ACR 1147).

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 24.10.2025 (Case Crime No. 417 of 2025, P.S. Megdawal, District Etah) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioners; therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained and no interference is warranted, following State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure.

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences complained of in the impugned FIR are punishable with a term up to 7 years, if the petitioners are arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273, and the directions dated 28.01.2021 of this Court in Vimal Kumar (2021 (2) ACR 1147).

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT (Rajeev Misra and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.), November 18, 2025 — Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25625 of 2025 (Jayram Maurya v. State of U.P.): Petition to quash FIR dated 24.10.2025 (Case Crime No. 417 of 2025, under Sections 333, 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS 2023, P.S. Megdawal, District Etah) rejected — FIR prima facie disclosing a cognizable offence, quashing not entertainable in view of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) SCC Online SC 315. However, all offences being punishable up to seven years, the Court directed that if the petitioners are arrested, the authorities shall strictly comply with Section 35 BNSS, the Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines, and the Allahabad High Court's directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147. Writ petition disposed of accordingly.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25625 of 2025

Jayram Maurya And 5 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respo
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Chandra Sen Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

.....Respondent(s)

Court No. - 47

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Heard Mr. Chandra Sen Pal, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1, 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the F.I.R. dated 24.10.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 417 of 2025, under Sections 333, 191 (2), 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) of (B.N.S.) 2023, Police Station- Megdawal, District- Etah, 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 F.I.R., which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence 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 case 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 7 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 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by

CRLP No. 25625 of 2025

2

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

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

November 18, 2025 HSM

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad