Allahabad High Court
/11154/2025 of SHYAM SWAROOP SRIVASTAVA @ BINU Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY., HOME DEPTT., LKO. AND OTHERS on 27 November 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11154 of 2025 Court No. - 30 HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11154 of 2025
Court No. - 30
HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J.
HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, 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. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 10.11.2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 0575 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 191(2), 351(3) B.N.S., Police Station- P.G.I., District- Lucknow, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.
3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Sachan Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Shyam Swaroop Srivastava @ Binu .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Home Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s)
FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147 and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. November 27, 2025 KU CRLP No. 11154 of 2025 2 (Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- KALIM UDDIN SIDDIQUI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench