Vinod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Vinod Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim non-arrest protection: until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested, subject to their cooperation in the investigation; substantive quashing question deferred ('Matter requires consideration'), notice issued to respondent no.4, counters/rejoinders sought, petition to be listed on the date fixed in the notice.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 19.10.2025 (Case Crime No.184 of 2025, P.S. Mirhechi, District Etah) under sections 70(1), 309(4), 89, 123, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 should be quashed, and whether the petitioners should be protected from arrest in pursuance of it pending adjudication.

Court's answer

Pending consideration of the quashing petition, the court granted interim protection: until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested, subject to their cooperation in the investigation.

Ratio / Principle

Notice was ordered to be issued to respondent no.4 by registered post with steps to be taken within ten days; the learned AGA appeared for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.

Key takeaways

Respondents were permitted to file counter affidavits within three weeks, with rejoinder affidavits, if any, due within two weeks thereafter.ratio¶¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, interim order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 26169 of 2025 (Vinod Kumar and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others), decided November 21, 2025, Bench: Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J. and Hon'ble Achal Sachdev, J. Petitioners sought quashing of the First Information Report dated 19.10.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.184 of 2025 under sections 70(1), 309(4), 89, 123, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mirhechi, District Etah, and prayed that they be not arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR. Counsel contended the principal role lay with one Manveer, that the FIR was lodged after some time amid a claimed consensual physical relationship between Manveer and the informant, and that the petitioners were blamed for abortion/termination of pregnancy only to implicate them; the court also noted the victim's section 183 BNSS statement attributing the accusation against the petitioners to suggestions of persons known to her. Holding the matter to require consideration, the court issued notice to respondent no.4 by registered post (steps within ten days), gave respondents three weeks to file counter affidavits and a further two weeks for rejoinders, and directed that, until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested subject to their cooperation in the investigation. The substantive question of quashing was left open.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26169 of 2025

Vinod Kumar And 2 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rahul Gaur
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 42

HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE ACHAL SACHDEV, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

This writ petition has been filed for quashing of the First Information Report dated 19.10.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No.184 of 2025 under sections 70(1), 309(4), 89, 123, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Mirhechi, District Etah. The petitioners have also prayed that they be not arrested in pursuance of the impugned FIR.

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that from the reading of the FIR itself it appears that the main role was assigned to one Manveer. It also appears that the FIR was lodged after some time and that Manveer and the informant were having consensual physical relationship. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that only to implicate the petitioners in the instant case, it has been stated in paragraph 9 of the writ petition, that the petitioners were made responsible for the abortion/termination of pregnancy. Further, we have also perused the statement of the victim under section 183 BNSS wherein it has been stated that on the basis of the suggestions made by persons known to the victim, the petitioners had been made accused.

Matter requires consideration.

Learned AGA appears for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. Issue notice to respondent no.4 by registered post. Steps may be taken within ten days.

Respondents may file their counter affidavits within a period of three

CRLP No. 26169 of 2025

2

weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List this petition on the date fixed in the notice.

Until further orders, the petitioners shall not be arrested subject to their cooperation in the investigation.

(Achal Sachdev,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)

November 21, 2025 GS

Digitally signed by :- GAUTAM SONI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad