Table of Content
1. challenge to fir based on bns sections. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. unexplained delay in fir renders prosecution unsustainable. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
3. civil disputes should not be criminalized. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. prima facie case exists for cognizable offense. (Para 13)
5. notice issued and counter affidavits requested. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
6. interim protection from arrest and charge sheet stay. (Para 20 , 21)
7. administrative discharge of assignment. (Para 22 , 23)

1. Heard Mr. V.K. Singh, the learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Avinash Singh along with Mr. Shivang, the learned counsel for petitioners, the learned A.G.A. for State respondents 1, 2 & 3 and Mr. Arunendra Kumar Singh, Advocate, who has put in appearance on behalf of first informant-respondent-4 by filing his Vakaltanama in Court today, which is taken on record.

2. Perused the record.

3. Petitioners-Anuj Singh and Vivek Singh Yadav @ Goru have approached this Court by means of present Criminal Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 03.04.2026 lodged by first informant-respondent-4, Ashish Kumar Singh and registered as Case Crime No. 0106 of 2025, under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(3) BNS, Police Station-Koraon, District-Prayagraj.

4. Mr. V.K. Singh, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners in challenge to the impugned FIR submits that in view of the facts and as have now crystallized on record, the criminal prosecution of petitioners pursuant to the impugned FIR is not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. As such, the impugned FIR is liable to be quashed by this Court.

5. Elaborating his aforesaid submission, the learned Senior counsel for petitioners first invited the attention of Court to the impugned FIR, certified copy of which is on record at page-27 of the paper book. With reference to the day, date and time of occurrence column of the FIR, it is contended by the learned Senior counsel for petitioners that it is an admitted case of first informant/respondent-4 that the occurrence/occurrences giving rise to present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred from 25.03.2024 to 10.01.2026. However, the impugned FIR was lodged on 03.04.2026. As such, there is delay of almost 3 months in lodging the impugned FIR. Even though, there is delay in lodging the impugned FIR, yet no explanation has come forward in the FIR itself explaining the delay/laches/negligence in lodging the FIR. On the above premise, the learned Senior counsel for petitioner thus submits that since there is delay in lodging the FIR but the delay in lodging the said FIR having not been sufficiently explained, therefore, the criminal prosecution of petitioners on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

6. To buttress his submission, the learned Senior counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgments of Supreme Court in

(i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka , (2002) 4 SCC 578,

(ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8),

(iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu , 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 ,

(iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2024) 2 SCC 176,

(v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 938

wherein the Apex Court has clearly held that if the FIR has been lodged with delay but no plausible explanation has come forward explaining the delay in lodging the FIR, then the criminal prosecution of an accused on the basis of such a delayed FIR cannot be sustained.

7. Much emphasis was laid upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (Supra), wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

8. Learned Senior counsel for petitioners has then referred to the judgment of Apex Court in Rajesh Pa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document