Allahabad High Court
/11479/2025 of RAVINDRA SINGH Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME LKO AND 3 OTHERS on 9 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11479 of 2025 Court No. - 11 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Brij Mohan Sahai as well as Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1 to 3. 2. In view
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11479 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
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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 Shri Brij Mohan Sahai as well as Shri Amar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for respondents no.1 to 3.
2. In view of proposed order, notice to opposite party 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 07.11.2025 bearing FIR/Case Crime No. 0389 of 2025, under Sections 406, 420, 468, 327, 506 and 504 IPC, Police Station- Payagpur, District- Bahraich.
4. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that from perusal of the impugned FIR it emerges that the petitioner and others have threatened the complainant and others apart from the fact that the petitioner and others have got executed a registered sale deed.
5. The contention is that besides the aforesaid, the impugned FIR lodged on 07.11.2025 alleges about an incident which is alleged to have taken place in March, 2016 and there is gross delay in lodging of the FIR. The other aspect of the matter is that apart from Section 327 of IPC, the other Sections of IPC which have been invoked against the petitioner, all carry a sentence of up to seven years with the exception of Section 327 of the IPC which pertains to voluntary causing hurt.
6. The contention is that from perusal of the impugned FIR, it does not emerge that the petitioner and others have caused hurt to the complainant or any other victim and as such it is apparent that Section 327 of the IPC has only been invoked in order to add gravity to the offences as levelled against the petitioner. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brij Mohan Sahai, Amar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Ravindra Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
7. On the other hand, learned AGA on the basis of instructions sent by Sri Suresh Mani Mishra, Senior Sub-Inspector, Police Station Payagpur, District Bahraich, dated 29.11.2025 states that the investigation is still going on and has also indicated about the criminal history of the petitioner.
8. Apart from the fact that the criminal history has been explained in the petition, it does not emerge from the instructions that the petitioner has caused any injury to the victim.
9. Considering the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the aforesaid FIR till filing of the charge sheet.
10. Needless to mention that the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation.
11. It is also provided that in case the petitioner does not cooperate in the said investigation it would be open for the Investigating Officer or the complainant to file appropriate application for vacation of this order. December 9, 2025 prateek CRLP No. 11479 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench