Smt. Mamta v. State of U.P. and others to state that

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and Shri Ramesh Gupta, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4 which is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. No.280/2025 dated 22.11.2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Babu Banarsi Das, District Lucknow.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the bare perusal of the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R., it emerges that the petitioner along with several others have severely beaten up the complainant and the victim with the result that they have suffered severe injuries and hence the F.I.R.

4. The contention is that no such incident ever took place and it is the false F.I.R. which has been lodged against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions states that the injuries have been suffered by the victim. On the other hand, Shri Ramesh Gupta has also indicated that severe injuries have been sustained by the victim.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on our order dated

4.12.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11421 of 2025 in re : Smt. Mamta Vs. State of U.P. and others to state that with respect of the same F.I.R., this Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. till some credible evidence emerges during 2 CRLP No. 11582 of 2025 the course of investigation.

7. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170 : Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others etc. , while considering the similar orders that have been passed by the Allahabad High Court, has observed that as High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the F.I.R., there cannot be any occasion for granting blanket protection to the parties till filing of the chargesheet as the same causes grave prejudice to the investigation inasmuch as neither there is any logic nor any rationale behind such direction.

8. For convenience, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra) are reproduced as under (paragraph 6 and 7) :- "6. The High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR and yet granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons, i.e., the private respondents herein, till after filing of the charge sheet which, in our opinion, has caused a grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. There is neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction.

7. It cannot be denied that provisions of pre-arrest bail are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance. To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible as has been held by this Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021)19 SCC 401. "22. As observed by this Court in Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. [Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 363], though the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438CrPC proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand whenever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court 3 CRLP No. 11582 of 2025 would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified. However, such a blanket interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps" cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner.

23. So far as the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" till the report/charge-sheet filed and/or during the course of investigation or not to arrest till the investigation is completed, passed while dismissing the quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly impermissible."

9. From the perusal of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. as well as the instructions made available to learned A.G.A., an incident has in fact taken place. Consequently, there cannot be any occasion for quashing of the F.I.R. Once the F.I.R itself is not capable of being interfered, as such there cannot be any occasion for this Court to grant the benefit of the earlier order passed by this court dated 4.12.2025 in the case of Smt. Mamta, more particularly, when the earlier order has been passed without considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra).

10. Upon the same being pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press this petition and prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy as may be available to him under law.

11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy as available to him under the law. December 9, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. and Shri Ramesh Gupta, Advocate who has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent no.4 which is taken on record.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the F.I.R. No.280/2025 dated 22.11.2025 registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 109 of B.N.S., Police Station Babu Banarsi Das, District Lucknow.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the bare perusal of the allegations as levelled in the F.I.R., it emerges that the petitioner along with several others have severely beaten up the complainant and the victim with the result that they have suffered severe injuries and hence the F.I.R.

4. The contention is that no such incident ever took place and it is the false F.I.R. which has been lodged against the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. on the basis of instructions states that the injuries have been suffered by the victim. On the other hand, Shri Ramesh Gupta has also indicated that severe injuries have been sustained by the victim.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on our order dated

4.12.2025 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No.11421 of 2025 in re : Smt. Mamta Vs. State of U.P. and others to state that with respect of the same F.I.R., this Court disposed of the writ petition with direction to the respondents not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned F.I.R. till some credible evidence emerges during 2 CRLP No. 11582 of 2025 the course of investigation.

7. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1170 : Sanjay Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P and others etc. , while considering the similar orders that have been passed by the Allahabad High Court, has observed that as High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the F.I.R., there cannot be any occasion for granting blanket protection to the parties till filing of the chargesheet as the same causes grave prejudice to the investigation inasmuch as neither there is any logic nor any rationale behind such direction.

8. For convenience, the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra) are reproduced as under (paragraph 6 and 7) :- "6. The High Court refused to exercise its jurisdiction for quashing of the FIR and yet granted a blanket protection from arrest to the accused persons, i.e., the private respondents herein, till after filing of the charge sheet which, in our opinion, has caused a grave prejudice to the investigation of the case. There is neither any logic nor any rationale behind such direction.

7. It cannot be denied that provisions of pre-arrest bail are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Hence, any person accused of an offence if desirous of seeking such protection would be required to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the competent Sessions Court at the first instance. To grant the relief of pre-arrest bail in a criminal writ petition while refusing to exercise jurisdiction to quash the proceedings is totally unacceptable and impermissible as has been held by this Court in the case of Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2021)19 SCC 401. "22. As observed by this Court in Hema Mishra v. State of U.P. [Hema Mishra v. State of U.P., (2014) 4 SCC 453 : (2014) 2 SCC (Cri) 363], though the High Courts have very wide powers under Article 226, the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice and to prevent abuse of process of law by the authorities indiscriminately making pre-arrest of the accused persons. It is further observed that in entertaining such a petition under Article 226, the High Court is supposed to balance the two interests. On the one hand, the Court is to ensure that such a power under Article 226 is not to be exercised liberally so as to convert it into Section 438CrPC proceedings. It is further observed that on the other hand whenever the High Court finds that in a given case if the protection against pre-arrest is not given, it would amount to gross miscarriage of justice and no case, at all, is made for arrest pending trial, the High Court 3 CRLP No. 11582 of 2025 would be free to grant the relief in the nature of anticipatory bail in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, keeping in mind that this power has to be exercised sparingly in those cases where it is absolutely warranted and justified. However, such a blanket interim order of not to arrest or "no coercive steps" cannot be passed mechanically and in a routine manner.

23. So far as the order of not to arrest and/or "no coercive steps" till the report/charge-sheet filed and/or during the course of investigation or not to arrest till the investigation is completed, passed while dismissing the quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and having opined that no case is made out to quash the FIR/complaint is concerned, the same is wholly impermissible."

9. From the perusal of the allegations levelled in the impugned F.I.R. as well as the instructions made available to learned A.G.A., an incident has in fact taken place. Consequently, there cannot be any occasion for quashing of the F.I.R. Once the F.I.R itself is not capable of being interfered, as such there cannot be any occasion for this Court to grant the benefit of the earlier order passed by this court dated 4.12.2025 in the case of Smt. Mamta, more particularly, when the earlier order has been passed without considering the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Gupta (supra).

10. Upon the same being pointed out, learned counsel for the petitioner says that he does not want to press this petition and prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy as may be available to him under law.

11. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy as available to him under the law. December 9, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Abdul Moin,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench