Disposed¶10

Sajid Ali v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025CRLP/3863/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:26995-DB; CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 3863 of 2025; Sajid Ali v. State of U.P.; decided 27.2.2025; FIR quashing refused; arrest protection; Section 35 BNSS procedure; offences punishable below 7 years; Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273 guidelines; Satendra Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar; Vimal Kumar 2021 (2) ACR 1147; IPC Sections 308, 323, 325, 354, 354(D), 452, 504; I.T. Act Section 66; PS Sector 113 Gautam Buddh Nagar; Case Crime No. 496 of 2024; petition disposed in terms of precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above (Arnesh Kumar; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar; Satendra Kumar Antil; Vimal Kumar); no interference with the impugned FIR. ¶10

Sajid Ali vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above (Arnesh Kumar; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar; Satendra Kumar Antil; Vimal Kumar); no interference with the impugned FIR.

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned FIR dated 25.10.2024 (Case Crime No. 496 of 2024) should be quashed and whether the petitioners are entitled to the protection that the police follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 BNSS, all alleged offences being punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

¶8

Court's answer

Without interfering with the impugned first information report, the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the judgments noted above (Arnesh Kumar, Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar, Satendra Kumar Antil, Vimal Kumar) are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above; the FIR was not quashed.

¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, J. and Nand Prabha Shukla, J.) disposed of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition seeking quashing of an FIR dated 25.10.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 496 of 2024 under Sections 308, 323, 354, 452, 504 IPC and Section 66 I.T. Act at PS Sector 113, District Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar, and a direction not to arrest the petitioners. The AGA pointed out that Section 308 IPC and Section 66 I.T. Act stood deleted and investigation was pending under Sections 323, 325, 354(D), 504 IPC, all punishable below seven years. Relying on the petitioner's submission invoking Section 35 BNSS procedure, the Court held, without interfering with the FIR, that the Apex Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar, Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51, and the co-ordinate Division Bench decision in Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147, were equally applicable, and disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:26995-DB

¶2

Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 3863 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Sajid Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandan Kumar Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Raghvendra Tiwari, holding brief of Sri Chandan Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Amit Sinha, learned A.G.A. I for the State respondents.

¶6

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 25.10.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 496 of 2024, under Sections 308, 323, 354, 452, 504 IPC and Section 66 I.T. Act, PS Sector 113, District Commissionerate Gautam Buddh Nagar, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

¶7

At the very outset, on instructions learned AGA has pointed out that Section 308 IPC and Section 66 I.T. Act have been deleted and now at this stage investigation under Sections 323, 325, 354(D), 504 IPC is still pending. It is submitted that all offences are punishable below 7 years.

¶8

Although the prayer for quashing of FIR has been made, but without insisting on the same, only submission is that all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment upto seven years, therefore the police authorities are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 BNSS. The petitioners have been wrongly implicated and could not be arrested. Reliance has been placed on the judgement of Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law and Justice and others in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 73 of 2015 with Criminal Appeal No. 1265 of 2017 Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 156 of 2017 and in Satendra Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another (2022) 10 SCC 51 and co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in Vimal Kumar & 3 others Vs. State of U.P. & 3 others in 2021 (2) ACR 1147.

¶9

We have gone through the impugned first information report and without interfering in the same, we are of the opinion that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the above noted judgement are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.

¶10

Accordingly, the instant petition also stands disposed of in terms of the judgements as noted above.

¶11

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Abhishek

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK AGRAHARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sajid Ali v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sajid Ali 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Akash Chaurasia vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rakesh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kiran Singh Chauhan and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Smt. Kavita vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kulvant Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Palak and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others