HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27807 of 2025 Alina @ Alina Rizvi And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of Up And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kashif Zaidi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Kashif Zaidi, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A representing State/respondents 1, 2 and 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Anila @ Anila Rizvi and 2 others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the first informant report dated 24.09.2025 lodged by first informant/respondent-4, Manav Arora and registered as Case Crime No. 0749 of 2025 under Sections 318 (4), 316 (5), 61 (2), 308 (3), 352, 351 (3) BNSS, Police Station- Sisrakh, District-Gautam Budh Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned F.I.R. contends that in the day, date and time column of occurrence mentioned in the impugned F.I.R., no material particulars have been furnished. He has then taken the Court to the body of the F.I.R. and on basis thereof, he contends that as per the prosecution case the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred on 30.12.2022. However, the impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 24.09.2025 i.e. after an expiry of a period of more than 2 years and almost 9 months. As such, the F.I.R. is highly belated. On the above pemise, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot sustained. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgements of Supreme Court in P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, P. Rajagopal And Ors. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866/2019(5) SCC 403, Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. State of U.P. (2022) 15 SCC 164, Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2024) 2 SCC 176, Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, 2024 SCC Online 938.According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the Apex Court in aforementioned judgements has itself observed that if there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. but the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained then the same cannot be sustained. Much emphasis was laid upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra) wherein the Apex Court quashed the F.I.R. as there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the F.I.R. Similarly, the Apex Court in Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 3 SCC 791. Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground of unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.

5. It is then contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the parties were in commercial relationship inasmuch as the petitioners were given a work order by first informant/respondent-4. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the said work order are also contains an arbitration clause, which is clause 23 of the Contract/Agreement. However, instead of resorting to the arbitration proceedings governed by the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the first informant/respondent 4 has lodged the impugned F.I.R., which is wholly malicious and also an abuse of the process of Court.

6. Referring to the contents of the F.I.R., the learned counsel for petitioners submits that no offence under Section 316 (5) BNSS i.e. Section 409 I.P.C.. can be said to be made out against petitioners. On the above conspectus, it is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned F.I.R. is nothing else but an abuse of the process of Court. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State/respondents 1,, 2 and 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He submits that since the impugned F.I.R. discloses the commission of