Sonu Patel @ Dwarika And 3 Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ss. 316(2), 351(4)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 s. 35
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. 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 55. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 A. Pandey (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.
Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated
19.08.2025 arising out of Case Crime No.573 of 2025, under Sections 316(2), 351(4) BNS 2023, Police Station Subhash Nagar, District Bareilly, 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 B.N.S.S. 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 B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar 2 CRLP No. 20302 of 2025 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.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. September 10, 2025 A. Pandey (Rajiv Lochan Shukla,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.) ANAND PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad