HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27872 of 2025 Amit Kumar Sharma And 5 Others .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Prashant Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dipendra Kumar, G.A., Pradeep Kumar Rai Court No. - 47 HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 and 2 and Mr. Dipendra Kumar, the learned counsel representing first informant/respondent 3.

2. Perused the record.

3. Supplementary affidavit filed by the learned counsel for petitioner in Court today, is taken on record.

4. Petitioner Amit Kumar Sharma And 5 Others have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 24.10.2025 lodged by first informant/respondent 3 Smt. Rashmi Mishra and registered as Case Crime No. 0622 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 127(2) of BNS 2023, Police Station Lohiyanagar, District Meerut.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner in challenge to the impugned FIR contends that the first informant/respondent 3 was working as Principal of the Institution namely Satykam International School, Lohiyanagar, Meerut. The first informant/respondent 3 was placed under suspension vide suspension order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the Committee of Management of aforementioned Educational Institution. Since the college is not on the grant- in-aid list of the State Government, therefore, no approval of the same was required by the U.P. Secondary Education Services and Selection Board Allahabad. Ultimately the first informant/respondent 3 was terminated from her services vide order dated 28.12.2025. The impugned FIR was lodged immediately after the suspension order was passed.

6. On the above premise it is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the impugned FIR is not only malicious but has been engineered to take revenge on account of the suspension order being passed against first informant/respondent 3 by the Committee of Management. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitoiner that the impugned FIR is, therefore, liable to be quashed by this Court.

7. Per contra the learned AGA representing State-respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel representing first informant/respondent 3 have vehemently opposed the present writ petition. They submit that since from perusal of the FIR commission of a cognizable offence is made out, therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court. However, they could not dislodge the fact that the first informant/respondent 3 was initially placed under suspension vide suspension order dated 08.10.2025 and was ultimately terminated from her services vide order dated 28.12.2025.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned AGA for State-respondents 1 and 2 and upon perusal of record, we find that matter requires consideration.

9. Notice on behalf of State-respondents 1 and 2 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. Mr. Dipendra Kumar, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of first informant/respondent 3. They pray for and are granted six weeks' time to file their respective counter affidavit.

10. Petitioners will have 2 weeks' thereafter to file their respective rejoinder affidavits.

11. List this writ petition for admission on 13.04.2026 before appropriate Bench.

12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in support of this writ petition as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is, hereby, provided that until further orders of this Court, petitioner shall not be arrested in Case Crime No. 0622 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4), 127(2) of BNS 2023.

13. We are not unmindful of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Pradnya Pranjal Kulkarni Vs. State of