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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above (Apex Court guidelines held equally applicable to the facts of the instant case); the impugned FIR was not interfered with, the prayer to quash it not having been insisted upon, and no separate arrest-related direction was issued.

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned First Information Report dated 19.12.2024 (Case Crime No. 191 of 2024) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the judgments noted above (Arnesh Kumar, Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar, Satendra Kumar Antil and Vimal Kumar) are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.

Ratio / Principle

The prayer for quashing of the FIR was not insisted upon and the Court went through the impugned FIR without interfering with it.

Key takeaways

The instant writ petition stands disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above.ratio¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla, J. and Nand Prabha Shukla, J.), CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. 914 of 2025, Sunil Kumar and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others, Order Date 20.1.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:8681-DB). Petition sought quashal of FIR dated 19.12.2024 registered as Case Crime No. 191 of 2024 under Sections 296, 76, 115(2), 352 BNS, PS Bahariya, District Prayagraj, and a direction not to arrest the petitioners. The prayer for quashing was not insisted upon. Without interfering with the FIR, the Court held that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, Satendra Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147 (coordinate Division Bench of the same Court) are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case - the petitioners having contended that, as all alleged offences are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the police are bound to follow the procedure laid down under Section 35 BNSS - and disposed of the petition in terms of the said judgments.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:8681-DB

Court No. - 43

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 914 of 2025

Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

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

Heard Ms. Rekha Sharma, holding brief of Sri Ravindra Kumar Patel, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Ratan Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 19.12.2024, registered as Case Crime No. 191 of 2024, under Sections 296, 76, 115(2), 352 BNS, PS Bahariya, District Prayagraj, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

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.

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.

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

Order Date :- 20.1.2025 Abhishek

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