HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27848 of 2025 Adil Ahmad .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rahul Kumar, Rohit Mishra, Vibha Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Akla Upadhyay, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rahul Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A representing State/respondents 1 and 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioner-Adil Ahmad has approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the first informant report dated 13.11.2025 lodged by first informant/respondent-3, Ashraf Ali and registered as Case Crime No. 0232 of 2025 under Section 420 I.P.C. Police Station-Siddharthnagar, District-Siddharthnagar.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Elaborating her submission, she has invited the attention of Court to the impugned F.I.R, copy of which is on record at page 18 of the paper book. With reference to day, date and time of occurrence column mentioned in the F.I.R., it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that it is an admitted case of the first informant/respondent-3 that the occurrence/occurrences giving rise to present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred on 24.11.2023. However, the impugned F.I.R. was lodged on 13.11.2025 i.e. after an expiry of a period of more than one year and 11 months from the date of occurrence. As such, the impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. Even though, the F.I.R. is highly belated but no explanation has come forward in the F.IR. itself explaining the delay in lodging the F.I.R. Since the F.I.R. is highly belated and the delay in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained, she, therefore submit that the 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 counsel for petitioner, 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 criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a belated F.I.R.

cannot be sustained.

5. 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 counsel for petitioner 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 conviction of accused therein on the ground that there is unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.

7. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that criminal prosecution of petitioner 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.

8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1 and 2 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. He submits that since the commission of a cognizable offence is clearly disclosed from the perusal of F.I.R., therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in present writ petition. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counse