Nitin Pandey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 1795 of 2026

Nitin Pandey

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Neelam Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 10

¶8

HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J. HON'BLE ZAFEER AHMAD, J.

¶9

Heard Ms. Neelam Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶10

This petition has been filed seeking following main relief:-

¶11

"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the impugned F.I.R. dated 05.01.2026 of case crime/F.I.R. No.0003/2026 Under section- 110, 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352, 74 B.N.S. and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(a) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Munshiganj, District Amethi lodged by the complainant only against the petitioner as contained in Annexure No.1 to this writ petition in the interest of justice."

¶12

There is consensus among learned counsel for the parties that the case in hand is covered by order dated 10.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1105/2026; Atul Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. and Others by co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this petition may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order, which on reproduction reads as under:-

¶13

"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶14

2. In view of proposed order, notice to opposite party no.4 is hereby dispensed with.

¶15

CRLP No. 1795 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

3. Instant writ petition has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari quashing the FIR No.3 of 2026 under Sections 110, 115(2), 191(2), 351(3), 352, 74 B.N.S., 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Munshiganj, Amethi.

¶18

4. At the very outset, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions sent by Shri Akhilesh Verma, Circle Officer Munshiganj, Amethi dated 05.02.2026 states that subsequent to lodging of the impugned FIR, it was realized that Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 had incorrectly been indicated in the FIR rather the same should be Section 3(2)(v)(a) of the Act, 1989.

¶19

Aforesaid statement is recorded.

¶20

5. Learned A.G.A. fairly states that now all the offences indicated in the impugned FIR carry maximum sentence up to 7 years, which fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶21

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not intend to raise a challenge the impugned FIR but prays that the benefit of judgments rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in re; Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another - (2014) 8 SCC 273 and Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another- (2022) 10 SCC 51 may be given to him, considering that the offences indicated in the aforesaid F.I.R. carry maximum punishment of less than seven years' imprisonment.

¶22

7. Further, recently the Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI and another-2026 INSC 115 has also held that for effecting an arrest, qua an offence punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the mandate of Section 35(1) (b) (i) of B.N.S.S., 2023 along with any one of the conditions mentioned in Section 35(1)(b)(ii) of the B.N.S.S, 2023 must be in existence and further if the circumstances warranting an arrest of a person are available in terms of the conditions mentioned under Section 35 (1)(b) of the B.N.S.S., 2023, the arrest shall not be undertaken, unless it is absolutely warranted.

¶23

8. There is no dispute that the offences as indicated in the impugned F.I.R. carry maximum punishment for the term less than seven years

¶24

CRLP No. 1795 of 2026

¶25

3

¶26

imprisonment. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) has categorically held that the investigating agencies and their officers are duty bound to comply with the mandate of Sections 41 and 41-A of Cr.P.C. (now Section 35(3) of BNSS 2023). As such, this petition is disposed of in view of the provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the law as laid down by the Apex Court in re; Arnesh Kumar (supra) and Satender Kumar Antil (supra) .

¶27

9. However, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever he is required to cooperate in the investigation. Thereafter, he shall continue to cooperate in the investigation till its completion, failing which, protection of this order may be withdrawn on the application being moved by the prosecution or the complainant. "

¶28

In view of above and consensus among learned counsel for the parties, this petition is also disposed of in terms of the order dated 10.02.2026 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.1105/2026.

¶29

However, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station on 23.03.2026 and he shall continue to cooperate in the investigation till its completion, failing which, protection of this order may be withdrawn on the application being moved by the prosecution or the complainant.

¶30

(Zafeer Ahmad,J.) (Rajnish Kumar,J.)

¶31

March 13, 2026 Saurabh

¶32

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

Nitin Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Pandey v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 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

Salman and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Sheshmaani Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Meeraj Hussain and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Shivakant Awasthi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Others

Xyz, Victim of Case Crime No. 205/2018 Thru. His Father vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko vs Victim X of Case Crime No. 205/2018 Thru. P.S. Bikapur, Ayodhya and 2 Others