Jogindar And 5 Others v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners 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…
- Para 66. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Israr
Judgment
Petitioner :- Jogindar And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Chandra Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J. Hon'ble Mohd. Azhar Husain Idrisi,J.
Sri Shahroze Khan, Advocate has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of the opposite party no. 3 today in Court, which is taken on record
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3 as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 20.12.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 0230 of 2024, under Sections 191(2), 190, 333, 352, 115(2), 351(3), 324(4) Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 3(1) (d), 3(1) (dha), 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment Act, 2015) Police Station- Khesraha, District- Siddharth Nagar, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, 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.
We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioners 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.
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 petitioners in pursuance of the impugned 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, be strictly complied with.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Order Date :- 16.1.2025 Israr
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Amendment Act, 2015; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Allahabad High Court, on 16 Jan 2025.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.