HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 689 of 2026 Mahipal Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s)

Versus State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, Syed Abid Ali Naqvi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sushil Shukla, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A.

representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Mahipal Singh and another have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 04.01.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Shanta Rani and registered as Case Crime No. 0011 of 2026, under Sections 318 (4) and 351 (2) BNS, Police Station-Nandgram, District-Ghaziabad.

4. Mr. Sushil Shukla, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners submits that the impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, the same is liable to be quashed this Court.

5. Elaborating his submission, the learned senior counsel has invited the attention of Court to the F.I.R., copy of which is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition. With reference to day, date and time of occurrence column in the F.I.R., it is contended by the learned senior counsel that it is an admitted case of the first informant/respondent-4 that the occurrence/occurrences giving rise to present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred from 30.07.2021 to 06.06.2025. However, the F.I.R. was lodged on 04.01.2026 i.e. after an expiry of a period of more than six months. It is then contended by the learned senior counsel that the date 06.06.2025 mentioned in the aforementioned column of the F.I.R. is also incorrect inasmuch as in the body of the F.I.R., the date of occurrence has been mentioned as 30.07.2021, which is evident from the recital occurring in 4th last line at page 27 of the paper book. On the above premise, the learned senior counsel contends that the impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. Since the F.I.R. is delayed but the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained, therefore, criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained. To buttress his submission, the learned senior counsel for petitioners 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. According to the learned senior 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.

6. Learned senior counsel has then referred to the judgement of Apex Court in Rajesh Patel Vs. State of Jharkhand (2013) 3 SCC 791, wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that there is unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R. On the above premise, the learned senior counsel for petitioners submits that criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained. In view of above, the impugned F.I.R. is liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 to 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He submits that since