HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27865 of 2025 Suresh Chandra Gupta And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vineet Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Heard Mr. Vineet Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents- 1 and 2.

Perused the record.

Petitioners- Suresh Chandra Gupta And 2 Others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the F.I.R. dated 16.11.2025 lodged by first informant/respondent-3- Sanjay Kumar Gupta, was registered as Case Crime No. 991 of 2025, under sections 131, 351 (3), 352 BNS, Police Station- Gulriha, District- Gorakhpur.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the day date and time column of occurrence, mentioned in the F.I.R. the date of occurrence has been transcribed as 17.10.2025 to 15.11.2025. However, in the body of the F.I.R. the only date of occurrence mentioned therein is 17.10.2025. He, therefore submits that there is delay of almost 30 days in lodging the F.I.R. Even though the F.I.R. is highly belated but no explanation has come forward in the F.I.R. explaining the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Since the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, criminal prosecution of petitioner on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained. To buttress his submission he has relied upon 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, wherein the Apex Court has clearly and categorically decided that if there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R. but the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained then the consequential prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a delayed F.I.R. cannot be sustained. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that since there is unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R giving rise to present criminal proceedings, therefore, the prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

Much emphasis was laid upon the judgement of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (supra) wherein the Court quashed the criminal proceedings pending against the accused therein as there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the F.I.R.

Reference was also made to the judgement of Supreme Court in Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2013 (3) 791 wherein conviction and sentence awarded to petitioner by trial Court was set aside by Apex Court on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 9 days in lodging the F.I.R.

Learned counsel for petitioners next contends that admittedly, three civil proceedings are pending interse between the parties i.e. (i) Matters Under Article 227 No. 4504 of 2025 (Smt. Shanti and 2 Others Vs. State of U.P) (ii) Revision No. 1572 of 2025 (Shanti Devi and Others Vs/. Dileep Kumar and Others) (iii) Original Suit No. 793 of 2025 (Smt. Shanti and Others vS. Ram Bhajan and Others). Admittedly, the Court Amin visited the disputed site pursuant to an order passed by Civil Court. As such, no offence as alleged can be said to have been committed. Referring to the judgement of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 SCC (Cr.) 426, learned counsel for petitioners submits that impugned F.I.R. cannot be sustained and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed by this Court.

Per contra, le