HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 27262 of 2025 Anil Kumar And 7 Others .....Petitioner(s)

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dileep Kumar Vishwakarma Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.

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

HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.

Heard Mr. Raghvendra Pratap, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Dileep Kumar Vishwakarma, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. for State/respondents-1,2 and 3.

Perused the record.

Petitioners- Anil Kumar and 7 Others have approached this Court by means of present criminal misc. writ petition challenging the F.I.R. dated 1.10.2025, lodged by first informant/respondent-3 Rubi Devi, and registered as Case Crime No. 344 of 2025, under Section 85, 352, 115 (2), BNS and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station- Govind Nagar, District- Kanpur Nagar. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that F.I.R. impugned in present writ petition is not only malicious but also an abuse of process of the Court. As such, same is liable to be quashed by this Court. In furtherance of aforesaid submission, the learned counsel for petitioners fairly submits that almost all the family members have been implicated in crime in question. However, allegations made in F.I.R. are neither clear nor categorical. Simply bald allegations have been made in the F.I.R. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 as re-affirmed in . Abhishek Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online Sc 1083, Sobhit Kumar Mittal Vs. State of U.P. 2025 SCC Online Sc 2059, Dara Lakshmi Narayana Vs. Stat eof Telangana (2025) 3 SCC 735 it is contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that impugned F.I.R. is therefore, unsustainable in law. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that F.I.R. impugned in present writ petition is liable to e quashed by this Court.

It is next contended by the learned counsel for petitioners that the impugned F.IR. is highly belated. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel for petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the impugned F.I.R. itself, copy of which is on record at page 21 of the paper book. With reference to day date and time of occurrence column of the F.I.R. it is urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that no details have been mentioned therein. He has then taken the Court to the body of F.I.R. and on basis thereof he submits that incident giving rise to present criminal proceedings is alleged to have occurred on 19.7.2025. However, the F.I.R. was lodged belatedly on 1.10.2025 i.e. after an expiry of a period of almost three months. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that impugned F.I.R. is highly belated. He, therefore, submits that even though the F.I.R. is highly belated, however, no explanation has been offered explaining the delay in lodging the F.I.R.

It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioners that even though the F.I.R. is highly belated, but the delay/laches in lodging the F.I.R. has not been sufficiently explained. He therefore, contends that criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a belated F.I.R. cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has then referred to 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 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 petitioner on the basis of such a delayed F.I.R. cannot be sustained