HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 26037 of 2025 Krishna Kumar And Another .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Pandey, Santosh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.K. Pandey, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1 & 2.

2. Perused the record

3. Petitioners-Krishna Kumar and Brahm Swaroop have approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the FIR dated 27.10.2025 lodged by first informant-respondent-3, Smt. Meena Devi and registered as Case Crime No. 0364 of 2025, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, Police Station-Kamalganj, District-Farrukhabad.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned FIR is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that petitioner-1 had lodged an FIR on 08.06.2024, which was registered as Case Crime No. 0121 of 2024, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B IPC, Police Station- Maudarwaja, District-Fatehgarh against Pushpendra Singh, Munesh, Umesh, Devjeet, Jai Singh. Named accused Jai Singh is the husband of respondent-3 Smt. Meena Devi, whereas the other named accused are related to the husband of first informant-respondent-3. On the above premise, it is thus urged that the impugned FIR has been engineered as a counterblast to the aforementioned criminal proceedings initiated by petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners then submits that the impugned FIR is highly belated. Elaborating his submission, he invited the attention of Court to the day, date and time of the occurrence column mentioned in the FIR. On basis thereof, he submits that the occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred on 29.03.2024, whereas the FIR was lodged on 27.10.2025 i.e. after an expiry of a period of one year and 7 months. As such, the FIR is highly belated. However, no explanation has come forward in the FIR itself explaining the delay/laches in lodging the FIR. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

6. To buttress his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners has relied 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. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of 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 counsel for petitioners thus submits that the criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

10. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 &