HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25687 of 2025 Waseem Khan .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind, P.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1 and 2.

Perused the record.

Petitioner- Waseem Khan has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition, challenging the F.I.R. dated 9.6.2024, lodged by first informant/respondent-3 Mohd. Azhar Khan and registered as Case Crime No. 0246 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Salempur, District- Deoria.

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of process of the Court. As such, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court. Elaborating his submissions, the learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of Court to the impugned F.I.R., which is at page 20 of the paper book. With reference to the same, it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the day, date and time column of F.I.R., no particulars have been mentioned. He has then taken the court to the body of the F.I.R. and on basis thereof he contends that even in the content of the F.I.R. the date of occurrence i.e. submission of forged papers to respondent-3 by petitioner and delivery of Rs. 64,000/- in cash by first informant to the petitioner has not been mentioned in the body of the F.i.R.

prosecution of petitioner on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the F.I.R. giving rise to present writ petition was lodged by respondent-3, under sections 420, 406 IPC. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in (i) Sharif Ahmed and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2024 SCC OnLine 726, (ii) Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd Vs. State of U.P. (2024) 10 SCC 690 and (iii) Rikhab Birani and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 823, he submits that prosecution of an accused under sections 406, 420 IPC simultaneously cannot be sustained. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that in view of above, the impugned F.I.R.

is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He submits that since the impugned F.I.R. discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. However, he could not dispute the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of present writ petition, with reference to the record at this stage.

Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1 and 2 and upon perusal of record, this court finds that matter requires consideration.

Notice on behalf of respondents-1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

Issue notice to first informant/respondent-3.

All the respondents may file their respective counter affidavits within six weeks. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavits.

List this writ petition for admission on 25.3.2026 before appropriate Bench. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, as noted herein above as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, petitioners shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0246 of 2024, under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 406, 120-B IPC, Police Station-

Salempur, District- Deoria.

This Court is not unmindful of the judgement of Supreme Court in Pradanya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of M.P., 2025 SCC On Line Sc 1948. Accordingly we direct that till the pendency of present writ petition, investigat