Disposed¶15

Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2025CRLP/6299/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Ayodhya FIR-quashing writ disposed of with Arnesh Kumar protection granted; forged Aadhar Card allegations; Section 35(3) BNSS 2023 / corresponding Section 41A Cr.P.C. mandate to police; petitioner reported as habitual offender with at least 13 prior FIRs; Aadhaar Act Section 35 penalty argument not adjudicated; Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh; Police Station Maharajganj, District Ayodhya; (2014) 8 SCC 273.

What did the court decide?

FIR not quashed; writ petition disposed of with the petitioner afforded the benefit of the Arnesh Kumar judgment, and police authorities directed to follow the mandate of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 41A Cr.P.C.) and the Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar directions. ¶15

Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, facing FIR No. 0116/2025 (forgery/cheating provisions of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, arising out of an allegedly forged Aadhaar card), is entitled to the benefit/protection of the Supreme Court judgment in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, i.e. compliance with Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 41A Cr.P.C.) instead of arrest. +1 more

¶14

Court's answer

Notwithstanding the investigating officer's instructions recording at least 13 prior F.I.R.s against the petitioner for forging documents/identity cards, and without going into the merits of the petitioner's contention that he forged no document, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the police authorities concerned to follow the mandate of Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 41A Cr.P.C.) and also the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:41554-DB), coram Sangeeta Chandra and Subhash Vidyarthi, JJ., decided 21.7.2025. Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6299 of 2025 by Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh sought certiorari quashing of F.I.R. No. 0116/2025 dated 28.05.2025, Police Station Maharajganj, District Ayodhya, registered under Sections 340(2), 336 (3), 338, 318(4) and 61(2) of the B.N.S. Act, 2023, with Section 319(2) subsequently added, alleging forgery of an Aadhar Card in the informant's name to sell his property. Counsel argued no forged document was made by the petitioner and that offence regarding a forged Aadhar Card falls under Section 35 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 (imprisonment up to three years and fine extendable to Rs. 10,000/-). Investigating Officer's instructions recorded the petitioner as a habitual offender with at least 13 F.I.R.s for forging documents/identity cards to sell illiterate villagers' land. Without going into the merits, the Court held the petitioner entitled to the benefit of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and disposed of the petition directing the police authorities to follow Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 41A Cr.P.C.) and the Supreme Court's Arnesh Kumar directions. FIR not quashed; merits left open.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:41554-DB

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 6299 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner : - Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh Respondent : - State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

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

¶7

This Writ Petition has been filed with the following relief(s):

¶8

"i. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quash the impugned First Information Report dated 28.05.2025 lodged by the opposite party No.4 as F.I.R. No. 0116/2025, under Sections 340(2), 336 (3), 338, 318(4) and 61(2) of B.N.S. Act, 2023 and subsequent added Section 319 (2) of B.N.S., Act, 2023, Police Station-Maharajganj, District Ayodhya."

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare perusal of the F.I.R. would show that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has committed forgery by making of a forged Aadhar Card in the name of the informant in order to sell his property.

¶10

It has been submitted that the petitioner has not made any forged document. The offence, if any, regarding forged Aadhar Card being made out of the informant can be dealt with under Section 35 of the Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016, where penalty for impersonation of an Aadhaar number holder is only of imprisonment up to three years and fine which may be extended up to Rs. 10,000/-.

¶11

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to the protection as given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. for the State has produced before this Court instructions sent by the Inspector/Investigating Officer of Police Station Mahrajganj, District Ayodhya, whereby it has been stated that the petitioner is a habitual offender and at least 13

¶13

F.I.R.s have been lodged against him by the members of general public, all relating to forging of documents/identity card etc to sell the land belonging to the illiterate villagers. The instructions are kept on record.

¶14

Without going into the merits of the case, set up by the petitioner regarding non-forging of the any documents, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to give the benefit of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a case reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273: Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the police authorities concerned to follow the mandate of Section 35(3) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding Section 41A Cr.P.C.) and also the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶16

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Sangeeta Chandra,J.)

¶17

Order Date :- 21.7.2025 Arvind

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ARVIND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramsingh Manjhi @ Ramsingh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 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

Vivek Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Ms. a Victim Case Crime No. 48/2025 (Minor ) Thru. Smt. X / Mother , in Case Crime No. 48/2025 vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Rameshwer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rameshwer vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 3 Others

Sameer and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Triloki Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others