Allahabad High Court
CRLP/11639/2025 of WASIULLAH @ SHABROJ MOHAMMADI Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME U.P. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS on 17 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11639 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. In view of proposed order, notice to respondent No.4 is hereby
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11639 of 2025
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
3
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. In view of proposed order, notice to respondent No.4 is hereby dispensed with.
3. This petition seeks issuance of direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 22.08.2025 bearing F.I.R./Case Crime No. 0216 of 2025, under Sections 420, 406, 504 of the I.P.C., Police Station- Wazirganj, District- Police Commissionerate Western Lucknow.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the impugned F.I.R. would indicate that Sections 420 & 406 of the I.P.C., 1860 have been invoked together.
5. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2024 SC 4531, the argument is that both the sections i.e. 406 & 420 of I.P.C. cannot be invoked together.
6. However, the learned A.G.A. appearing for respondents-State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the offence allegedly committed by the petitioner, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohammad Masood Raza, Anshu Tripathi, Jhanak Bhawnani Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Wasiullah @ Shabroj Mohammadi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall be strictly followed in terms 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.
7. Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioner states that his petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts.
8. Accordingly, 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).
9. It is further provided that the respondent-authorities would consider the judgment of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. (supra) during the course of investigation.
10. 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. December 17, 2025 S. Shivhare CRLP No. 11639 of 2025 2 (Mrs. Babita Rani,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASHANK SHIVHARE High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench