Shyama Prasad Majumder vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Shyama Prasad Majumder vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without interfering with the FIR; however, if the petitioner is arrested in pursuance of the FIR, the respondents/ authorities are directed to strictly comply with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar), and the Satender Kumar Antil directions dated 21.01.2025.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR dated 31.05.2024 (Case Crime No. 082 of 2024, Police Station- Cyber Crime, Lucknow) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The first information report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner; therefore the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained and no interference is warranted, in reliance on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.

Ratio / Principle

Since all offences complained of are punishable with a term up to seven years, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, the respondents/ authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines ((2014) 8 SCC 273), the directions issued by this Court on 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, 2021 (2) ACR 1147), and the further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI vide order dated 21.01.2025.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (Criminal Misc.) No. 577 of 2025 (Lucknow Bench, Allahabad High Court; bench: Rajiv Gupta, J. and Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.; decided November 26, 2025): Petitioner sought quashing of FIR dated 31.05.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 082 of 2024 under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. and Section 66-D of I.T. Act, P.S. Cyber Crime, District Lucknow. The Court held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence against the petitioner and declined to quash it, relying on State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779, and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 315. As all offences are punishable up to seven years, the Court disposed of the petition directing that, before or upon any arrest of the petitioner, strict compliance be ensured with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines ((2014) 8 SCC 273), the directions of this Court dated 28.01.2021 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147), and the further Apex Court directions in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. CBI dated 21.01.2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 577 of 2025

Shyama Prasad Majumder

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd. Amir Khan, Sheelam Devi, Surya Prakash Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 30

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 31.05.2024, arising out of Case Crime No. 082 of 2024, under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C. & Section 66-D of I.T. Act, Police Station- Cyber Crime, District- Lucknow, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report 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 first information report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report, 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 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 judgment and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020

CRLP No. 577 of 2025

2

(Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 , and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

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

November 26, 2025 Haseen U.

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench