Evran Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P, and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 May 2025CRLP/9152/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC DB (Birla & Sinha JJ.) disposed Crl. Misc. W.P. 9152/2025 on 7.5.2025 re FIR 113/2025 dated 2.4.2025, PS Kotwali Dehat, Etah (498A, 323, 494, 506 IPC; 3/4 DP Act): FIR not quashed; Apex Court guidelines (Arnesh Kumar (2014) 8 SCC 273; Satendra Kumar Antil (2022) 10 SCC 51; Social Action Forum; Vimal Kumar 2021 (2) ACR 1147) held equally applicable; arrest to follow Section 35 BNSS procedure.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of in terms of the judgments noted above (Arnesh Kumar; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar; Satendra Kumar Antil; Vimal Kumar), with the Court expressly not interfering with the impugned FIR; the practical effect is that the Apex Court arrest-procedure guidelines (including Section 35 BNSS procedure) apply before any arrest of the petitioners. ¶¶10

Evran Singh and 4 Others vs State of U.P, and 2 Others — Dowry and Cruelty | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶10

Issue for consideration

Given that all offences alleged in the FIR are punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, whether the police authorities must follow the arrest-procedure guidelines laid down by the Apex Court (Section 35 BNSS procedure) before arresting the petitioners, who claim to have been wrongly implicated. +1 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

Having gone through the impugned FIR, the Court opined that the guidelines framed by the Apex Court in the judgments noted above (Arnesh Kumar; Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar; Satendra Kumar Antil, along with the co-ordinate Division Bench decision in Vimal Kumar) are equally applicable to the facts of the instant case.

¶¶9

Ratio / Principle

Without interfering with the impugned FIR, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgments noted above.

¶¶10

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Division Bench: Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J. and Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha, J.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 9152 of 2025, decided 7.5.2025 — Writ petition sought quashing of FIR dated 2.4.2025 (Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, PS Kotwali Dehat, District Etah) registered under Sections 498A, 323, 494 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of DP Act, and a direction that the petitioners not be arrested. Counsel contended that, all offences being punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the police were bound to follow the procedure under Section 35 BNSS, relying on Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India (W.P.(C) No. 73 of 2015 etc.), Satendra Kumar Antil v. CBI, (2022) 10 SCC 51 and Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147 (co-ordinate Division Bench). The Court, without interfering with the FIR, held the Apex Court guidelines equally applicable to the facts and disposed of the petition in terms of those judgments.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73258-DB

¶2

Court No. - 43

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9152 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Evran Singh And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P, And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anita Singh,Kumari Poonam Rajpoot,Nirmla Kumari,Prem Babu Verma Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J. Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Anita Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri Rahul Asthana, learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the prayer to quash the impugned First Information Report dated 2.4.2025, registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2025, under Sections 498A, 323, 494 and 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of DP Act, PS Kotwali Dehat,, District Etah, and for a direction to the respondents not to arrest the petitioners in pursuance of impugned First Information Report.

¶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 :- 7.5.2025 Abhishek

¶12

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

Evran Singh and 4 Others v. State of U.P, and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Evran Singh and 4 Others 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

Ram Baks Singh and Another vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

State of Up vs Akhilesh Yadav S/O Ram Narayan Yadav

Akil Ahmad and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Husain Uddin Hashim vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Usha and 3 Others vs State of Up and 2 Others