Anuj Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

#1. Heard Mr. V.K. Singh, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Avinash Singh along with Mr. Shivang, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Arunendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent-4 by filing his Vakaltanama in Court today, which is taken on record.

#2. Perused the record.

#3. Petitioners-Anuj Singh and Vivek Singh Yadav @ Goru have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 03.04.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Ashish Kumar Singh and registered as Case Crime No. 0106 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Koraon, District-Prayagraj.

#4. Mr. V.K. Singh, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners in challenge to the impugned FIR submits that in view of the facts and as have now crystallized on record, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. As such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

#5. Elaborating his aforesaid submission, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners first invited the attention of Court to the impugned FIR, certified copy of which is on record at page-27 of the paper book. With reference to the day, date and time of occurrence column of the FIR, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners that it is an admitted case of first informant/respondent-4 that the occurrence/occurrences giving rise to present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred from 25.03.2024 to 10.01.2026. However, the impugned FIR was lodged on 03.04.2026. As such, there is delay of almost 3 months in lodging the impugned FIR. Even though, there is delay in lodging the impugned FIR, yet no explanation has come forward in the FIR itself explaining the delay/laches/negligence in lodging the FIR. On the above premise, the learned Senior counsel for petitioner thus submits that since there is delay in lodging the FIR but the delay in lodging the said FIR having not been sufficiently explained, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

#6. To buttress his submission, the learned Senior counsel for petitioner has relied 2 CRLP No. 10123 of 2026 upon the judgments of Supreme Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 , (iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176, (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938, wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that if the FIR has been lodged with delay but no plausible explanation has come forward explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, then the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

#7. Much emphasis was laid upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (Supra), wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

#8. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners has then referred to the judgment of Apex Court in Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2013) 3 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court quashed the conviction of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the FIR.

#9. On the above conspectus, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners thus submits that the criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained either in law or on facts.

#10. It is next contended by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners that the dispute between the parties is essentially a civil dispute, which has been dragged into criminal litigation.

#11. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners submits the parties are already litigating before the Competent Civil Court by means of Original Suit No. 38 of 2026 (Ashish Kumar Singh and Others Vs. Anuj Singh), which has been filed for a permanent injunction. According to the learned Senior counsel for petitioners, first informant-Ashish Kumar Singh is the plaintiff in aforementioned Original Suit. An application temporary injunction as contemplated under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 has also been filed by the plaintiff in aforementioned original suit but till date, no order has been passed by the Trial Court on the aforesaid application. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners has then drawn a parallel between the allegations made in the FIR and the averments made in the FIR and on basis thereof, it is urged by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners that since petitioners have failed to get any order from the Competent Civil Court, the impugned FIR has been engineered. It is thus urged by the learned Senior counsel for petitioner that a purely civil dispute has been dragged into criminal litigation, which is not permissible in law.

#12. To buttress his submission, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Anukul Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2060. Reliance is placed upon paragraphs 11.5 and 19 of the aforesaid report. Reference in this regard has also been made to the judgment of 3 CRLP No. 10123 of 2026 Supreme Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2008 SC 251 as well as Rikhab Birani and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, wherein the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of dragging civil disputes into criminal litigation. On the edifice of above submissions, it is thus urged by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners that the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

#13. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3 and and Mr. Arunendra Kumar Singh, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent- 4 have vehemently opposed the present writ petition. They submit that since upon perusal of impugned FIR, commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. Learned A.G.A. further contends that at this stage, only a prima-facie case is to be seen. Since as per the allegations made in the FIR, a prima-facie case is made out, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in present writ petition. However, they could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners in support of present writ petition as noted herein above with reference to the record at this stage.

#14. Be that as it may, having heard the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3, the learned counsel representing first informant-respondent-4 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

#15. Notice on behalf of State respondents 1, 2 & 3 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

#16. Mr. Arunendra Kumar Singh, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent-4.

#17. They pray for and are granted 6 weeks time to file their respective counter affidavits.

#18. Petitioners will have 2 weeks thereafter to file their rejoinder affidavits.

#19. List this writ petition for admission before appropriate Bench on 04.08.2026 .

#20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of this writ petition as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is, hereby, provided that until further order of this Court, petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0106 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, Police Station- Koraon, District-Prayagraj arising out of the impugned FIR dated 03.04.2026.

#21. We are not unmindful of the judgment of Supreme Court in Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1948. Therefore, we further direct that investigation of concerned case crime number may go on but the requisite charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 193(3) BNSS shall 4 CRLP No. 10123 of 2026 not be submitted by the Investigating Officer before Court till the pendency of present writ petition.

#22. The matter shall not be treated as tied up or part heard to this Bench.

#23. Assignment, if any, stands discharged. May 5, 2026 Vinay (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)