HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 2702 of 2026 Rambabu Garg And Another .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Narayan Singh, Sudhakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sudhakar Shukla, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A representing State/respondents 1 and 2.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Rambabu Garg And Another have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the first informant report dated 02.10.2025 lodged by first informant/respondent-3, Hariom @ Pintu Shukla and registered as Case Crime No. 0168 of 2025 under Sections 420, 467, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-

Bharatkoop, District-Chitrakoot.

4. Learned counsel for petitioners in challenge to the impugned F.I.R. submits that the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged by first informant/respondent-3, alleging therein that petitioner has excavated minor and mineral beyond the term of lease. According to the learned counsel for petitioners, the impugned F.I.R. is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of Court to the impugned F.I.R., copy of which is on record at page 19 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 21.11.2021. However, an application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was filed by first informant/respondent-3 only on 25.06.2025 i.e. after 3 years and 7 months. The F.I.R. impugned in present writ petition is ad-verbatim copy of the application under Section 174 (3) BNSS filed by first informant/respondent-

3. However, no explanation has come forward in the application/F.I.R. itself explaining the delay in lodging the F.I.R. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioners thus submits that even though the F.I.R. is highly belated yet no explanation has come forward in explaining the delay/laches in lodging the F.I.R. It is thus contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a belated F.I.R.

cannot be sustained.

5. 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

6. According to the learned 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 criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

7. 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.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners 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 an unexplained delay of 11 days in lodging the F.I.R.

9. On the above premise, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis o