Surya Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 7094 of 2026

¶3

Surya Prakash Singh

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Manisha Singh, Pankaj Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 49

¶7

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

¶8

Heard Mr. Pankaj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for petitioner; the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3; and Mr. Atul Kumar Upadhyay, learned Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant–respondent 4 by filing his vakalatnama in the Court today, which is taken on record.

¶9

Perused the record.

¶10

Petitioner Surya Prakash Singh has approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.02.2026, lodged by first informant–respondent 4, Mithlesh Singh, and registered as Case Crime No. 48 of 2026, under Sections 316(2) & 351(2) B.N.S., 2023 at Police Station Badagaon, District Gomati (Commissionerate Varanasi).

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner, in challenge to the impugned F.I.R., submits that the criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of the Court. As such, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶12

Elaborating his aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioner firstly submits that the impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. In furtherance of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of Court to the impugned F.I.R., certified copy of which is on record at page 27 of the paper book.

¶13

CRLP No. 7094 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

With reference to the "day, date and time of occurrence" column of the F.I.R., it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that no material particulars have been mentioned in the aforesaid column of the F.I.R.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner then took the Court to the body of the F.I.R., and with reference to paragraph 7 thereof, submits that it is the admitted case of first informant–respondent No. 4 that the alleged occurrence took place on 13.11.2025. However, an application under Section 173(4) of B.N.S.S. (akin to Section 156(3) Cr.P.C.) was filed by the first informant–respondent No. 4 before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 05.12.2025, i.e., after an expiry of a period of 22 days. He, therefore, submits that the impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. However, the delay/laches/negligence in lodging the impugned F.I.R., which is an ad verbatim copy of the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S., has not been explained. It is thus submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that since there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. but the same having not been sufficiently explained, therefore the criminal prosecution of petitioner pursuant to such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

¶17

To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in P. Ramachandra Rao vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578; P. Rajagopal and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 / (2019) 5 SCC 403; Hasmukhlal D. Vora and another vs. State of U.P., (2022) 15 SCC 164; Sekaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176; and Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938 .

¶18

According to the learned counsel for petitioner, the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments has observed that if there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. and such delay has not been sufficiently explained, then the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

¶19

Much emphasis was laid upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra), wherein the Apex Court quashed the F.I.R. as there was an unexplained delay of 39

¶20

CRLP No. 7094 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

days in lodging the F.I.R.

¶23

Learned counsel for petitioner has then referred to the judgment of Apex Court in Rajesh Patel vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court quashed the conviction of accused therein on the ground that there was an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.

¶24

Learned counsel for petitioner has then again taken the Court to the body of the F.I.R. and, on that basis, submits that the contract alleged to have been entered into, by the parties is an oral contract.

¶25

In view of the above, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, the remedy available to the first informant–respondent No. 4 is to file a suit before the competent civil court for rendition of accounts or for recovery of money. Simply on the basis of an oral contract, which is not supported by any cogent evidence, it cannot be said that any entrustment was made by the first informant–respondent No. 4 in favour of the petitioner.

¶26

It is lastly contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged as a counterblast to the criminal proceedings previously initiated by the petitioner himself.

¶27

In support of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of Court to the F.I.R. lodged by the petitioner himself against the first informant–respondent No. 4. Copy of same is on record at page 36 of the paper book. In the aforesaid F.I.R., the date of occurrence has been clearly mentioned as 13.11.2025. In order to overcome the effect of the aforementioned F.I.R., it is urged that the impugned F.I.R. has been re-engineered.

¶28

On the cumulative strength of aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner thus submits that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R. cannot be sustained in law over fact. As such the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

¶29

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 and 3 and the learned counsel representing first informant–respondent 4 have vehemently opposed the present writ

¶30

CRLP No. 7094 of 2026

¶31

4

¶32

petition. They submit that since upon perusal of impugned F.I.R., commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed; therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner, as noted hereinabove with reference to the record at this stage.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, upon perusal of the record and considering the rival submissions, we find that matter requires consideration.

¶34

Notice on behalf of State-respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

¶35

Mr. Atul Kumar Upadhyay, Advocate, has put in appearance on behalf of first informant–respondent 4.

¶36

They pray for and are granted six weeks' time each to file their respective counter affidavits.

¶37

Petitioner shall have two weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavits.

¶38

List this writ petition for admission before appropriate Bench on 29.05.2026.

¶39

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as the submissions urged by learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition, as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 48 of 2026, under Sections 316(2) and 351(2) B.N.S., Police Station Badagaon, District Gomati (Commissionerate Varanasi), arising out of the impugned F.I.R. dated 01.02.2026.

¶40

We are not unmindful of the judgment of Apex Court in P.P. Kulkarni vs. State of Maharashtra and another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 948 . Accordingly, we further direct that investigation of concerned Case Crime shall continue by the Investigating Officer shall not submit the police report in terms of Section 193(3) B.N.S.S. before the jurisdictional Magistrate during the pendency of present

¶41

CRLP No. 7094 of 2026

¶42

5

¶43

writ petition.

¶44