Allahabad High Court
/11565/2025 of JAVED ALI AND ANOTHER Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME U.P. LKO. AND OTHERS on 9 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11565 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 is also taken on record. 2.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11565 of 2025
Court No. - 11
HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
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. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record. Short counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4 is also taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned A.G.A. for the State-opposite party nos.1, 2 and 3 and Shri Piyush Pathak, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.4.
3. This petition seeks quashing the impugned FIR dated 06.11.2025 registered as Case Crime No.0636 of 2025, under Sections 316(2) of B.N.S., Police Station- Chinhat, District- Lucknow; with a further prayer to direct the opposite party nos.2 and 3 to not proceed or arrest the petitioners on the basis of impugned FIR dated 06.11.2025.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the offences as alleged in FIR carry maximum punishment for the term less than seven years imprisonment, whereas, the police is trying to arrest them, which is against the mandate of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.
5. Learned A.G.A. appearing for respondents-State has given a statement on behalf of investigating agency that because the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atul Tiwari, Ankit Kumar Trivedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Piyush Pathak, Vaibhav Prakash Jaiswal Javed Ali And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
offence allegedly committed by the petitioners, entails sentence of less than seven years, provisions of Section 35(3) Bhartiya Nagrik 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.
6. Considering the stand of the investigating agency, learned counsel for the petitioners states that this petition be disposed of in view of the above said facts.
7. 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).
8. However, it is directed that the petitioners shall appear before the Investigating Officer of the concerned police station whenever they are required to cooperate in the investigation. Thereafter, they 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 9, 2025 Anand/- CRLP No. 11565 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench