# Abhishek v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 1450
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-12
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10601 of 2025
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin, Mrs. Babita Rani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/abhishek-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52756
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, could quash the F.I.R. or grant
protection from arrest, by examining the
credibility or correctness of allegations, when
the F.I.R., on its face, disclosed commission of
cognizable offences.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Quashing of F.I.R. - Scope -Civil Dispute-
Credibility of allegations - Mini-trial
impermissible
-
Cognizable
offence
disclosed - Writ petition dismissed.

Held:

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, the High Court is not required
to
examine
the
credibility,
reliability,
or
correctness of the allegations made in the F.I.R.
Such an exercise would amount to conducting a
mini-trial, which is impermissible at the stage of
considering a prayer for quashing of an F.I.R.
[Paras 9-10]
11 All. Abhishek Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
The settled position of law is that quashing of
an F.I.R. can be considered only when, on a
plain reading of the F.I.R., no prima facie case
or no cognizable offence is disclosed. So long as
the allegations, taken at face value, disclose
commission of a cognizable offence, the Court
should not interfere. [Paras 10-14]

The pleas raised by the petitioner that the F.I.R.
was lodged as a counterblast, that there was a
civil dispute between the parties, that the
petitioner was not present at the spot, or that
the petitioner belonged to a particular caste,
were held to be matters of defence, which
cannot be examined at the stage of quashing
and would require appreciation of evidence.
[Paras 7, 9, 16]

From a bare perusal of the impugned F.I.R., the
petitioner was specifically named, and allegations
constituting cognizable offences were disclosed.
Entertaining the grounds urged by the petitioner
would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed
questions of fact, which is barred in writ
jurisdiction. [Paras 15-16]

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court and the fact that the F.I.R. disclosed
cognizable offences, the criminal writ petition
was found to be devoid of merit and was
accordingly dismissed. [Para 17] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and
Others, 2025 INSC 1287 - relied on;
State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty,
(2022) 16 SCC 703 - relied on; Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh
and Others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 - relied
on;
Neeharika
Infrastructure
Private
Limited v. State of Maharashtra and
Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution
of
India;
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

## Text

1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner had been charged in the charge
sheet. The said inquiry report has been
accepted by the disciplinary authority vide
order dated 14.12.2018. Thus, it is apparent
that no inquiry was in fact conducted for
the charge of disproportionate assets which
was a charge in the charge sheet and thus
there is no restraint or bar now in the
respondents
in
lodging
the
First
Information Report under the provisions of
the Act, 1988. Accordingly, none of the
judgments over which reliance has been
placed by the learned Senior Advocate
appearing on behalf of the petitioner would
have any applicability in the facts of the
instant case. Thus, the said ground is also
rejected.

47. So far as ground of malice is
concerned, suffice it to say that once no
inquiry has been conducted with regard to
disproportionate assets despite the said
charge having been indicated in the charge
sheet that had been issued to the petitioner
and no findings were specifically given by
the inquiry officer for the reasons recorded
in the inquiry report while conducting the
said inquiry consequently, it cannot be said
that any malice has been occasioned on the
part of the respondents in lodging the said
First Information Report and thus the
ground that the said First Information
Report has only been lodged in order to
deprive the petitioner from being promoted
to the post of General Manager is patently
misconceived and accordingly rejected.

48. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, no case for interference is made
out. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.

49. The Court keeps record the
assistance rendered by Mr. Azam Siddiqui,
Research Associate of this Court.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1450
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. BABITA RANI, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 10601 of
2025

Abhishek ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gyan Sagar Gupta, Aditya Vikram Shahi,
Pratibha Gupta, Shivani Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A.

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court, in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, could quash the F.I.R. or grant
protection from arrest, by examining the
credibility or correctness of allegations, when
the F.I.R., on its face, disclosed commission of
cognizable offences.

Headnotes
Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Quashing of F.I.R. - Scope -Civil Dispute-
Credibility of allegations - Mini-trial
impermissible
-
Cognizable
offence
disclosed - Writ petition dismissed.

Held:

While exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution, the High Court is not required
to
examine
the
credibility,
reliability,
or
correctness of the allegations made in the F.I.R.
Such an exercise would amount to conducting a
mini-trial, which is impermissible at the stage of
considering a prayer for quashing of an F.I.R.
[Paras 9-10]
11 All. Abhishek Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
The settled position of law is that quashing of
an F.I.R. can be considered only when, on a
plain reading of the F.I.R., no prima facie case
or no cognizable offence is disclosed. So long as
the allegations, taken at face value, disclose
commission of a cognizable offence, the Court
should not interfere. [Paras 10-14]

The pleas raised by the petitioner that the F.I.R.
was lodged as a counterblast, that there was a
civil dispute between the parties, that the
petitioner was not present at the spot, or that
the petitioner belonged to a particular caste,
were held to be matters of defence, which
cannot be examined at the stage of quashing
and would require appreciation of evidence.
[Paras 7, 9, 16]

From a bare perusal of the impugned F.I.R., the
petitioner was specifically named, and allegations
constituting cognizable offences were disclosed.
Entertaining the grounds urged by the petitioner
would necessarily involve adjudication on disputed
questions of fact, which is barred in writ
jurisdiction. [Paras 15-16]

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme
Court and the fact that the F.I.R. disclosed
cognizable offences, the criminal writ petition
was found to be devoid of merit and was
accordingly dismissed. [Para 17] (E-14)

Case Law Cited
Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and
Others, 2025 INSC 1287 - relied on;
State of Odisha v. Pratima Mohanty,
(2022) 16 SCC 703 - relied on; Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Aryan Singh
and Others, (2023) 18 SCC 399 - relied
on;
Neeharika
Infrastructure
Private
Limited v. State of Maharashtra and
Others, (2021) 19 SCC 401 - relied on.

List of Acts / Statutes
Constitution
of
India;
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989.

List of Keywords
Quashing of F.I.R.; Cognizable offence; Prima
facie case; Mini trial; Credibility of allegations;
Counterblast; Writ petition dismissed.
Case Arising From
F.I.R. dated 29.10.2025, registered as Case
Crime No. 0768 of 2025, under Sections 191(2),
115(2), 109(1), 309(4), 351(3), 352, 76 and
324(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Police Station Para, District Lucknow.

Appearance for Parties
For the Petitioner(s): Sri Gyan Sagar Gupta,
Sri Aditya Vikram Shahi, Ms. Pratibha Gupta, Ms.
Shivani Gupta
For the Respondents: Learned Government
Advocate
Sri Abhishek (for respondent no. 4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Babita Rani, J. )

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner
as
well
as
learned
AGA
appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3 and
Sri Shivam, learned counsel who has filed
Vakalatnama today on behalf of respondent
No.4, is taken on record.

2. Under challenge is the FIR dated
29.10.2025 vide Case Crime No.0768 of 2025,
under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109(1), 309(4),
351(3), 352, 76, & 324(4) B.N.S. Police
Station Para District Lucknow. Further prayer
is for a mandamus commanding the opposite
parties not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance
of the impugned FIR.

3. The case of the petitioner is that
initially an FIR dated 16.08.2025 was lodged
by Smt. Meera Devi, who had purchased a
property alongwith the petitioner. The said
FIR had been lodged against the respondent
No.4 alongwith several others under the
provisions of Sections 351(3), 352 & 191(2) of
B.N.S., 2023, a copy of which is Annexure-3
to the writ petition.

4.
Subsequent
thereto
one
Sri
Shailendra Pratap Rawat, who is the co-
1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
sharer of the property along with the
petitioner lodged an FIR dated 29.10.2025
under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 109(1),
309(4), 351(3) of B.N.S. 2023 and Sections
3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended in the
year 2015, a copy of which is Annexure-2
to the writ petition.

5. As a counterblast, the respondent
No.4 has lodged the impugned FIR dated
29.10.2029, a copy of which is Annexure-1
to the writ petition against the petitioner
and several others.

6. Raising a challenge to the said FIR,
the instant petition has been filed.

7. The arguments of learned counsel
for the petitioner are:-

(A)
Section
354
IPC
(corresponding Section 76 of B.N.S.) in
which the impugned FIR has been lodged,
cannot be invoked against the petitioner as
he was not present on the spot,

(B) there is a civil dispute
pertaining to the same property pending
between the parties;

(C) the property belongs to the
petitioner, who also belongs to scheduled
caste;

(D) informant who belongs to
Other Backward Caste is the aggressor.

8. No other ground has been urged.

9. The aforesaid grounds as taken by
the learned counsel for the petitioner are
found
to
be
patently
fallacious
&
misconceived.

10. The reason is that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in a recent judgement in the
case of Muskan vs. Ishaan Khan
(Sataniya) and others; 2025 INSC 1287
has held as under:

"We are of the view that the High
Court has erred in law by embarking upon
an enquiry with regard to credibility or
otherwise
of
the
allegations
in
the
complaints and the FIR. Normally, for
quashing an FIR, it must be shown that
there exists no prime facie case against
the accused persons. In the present case,
from
the
conjoint
reading
of
the
complaints and the FIR, it can be seen
that prime facie allegations of harassment
and demand of dowry are made out,
despite that the High Court quashed the
FIR against the private respondents
primarily on the ground that the earlier
two complaints that were filed by the
appellant did not mention the specific
instances that happened on 22.07.2021
and 27.11.2022 and the same were later
on mentioned in the FIR only as an
afterthought and was a counterblast to the
legal
notice
sent
by
respondent
no.1/husband to the appellant as she was
not coming back to her matrimonial
home. This approach adopted by the High
Court, in our considered opinion, amounts
to conducting a mini trial."

(emphasis by the Court)

11. Likewise the Apex Court in the
case of State of Odisha Vs. Pratima
Mohanty- (2022) 16 SCC 703 has held
that the power of quashing should be
exercised
sparingly
and
with
circumspection and in rare cases. As per
settled proposition of law while examining
an FIR/complaint quashing of which is
sought, the court cannot embark upon any
11 All. Aditya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1453
enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
of allegations made in the FIR.

12. Similarly, the Apex Court in the
case of Central Bureau of Investigation
vs. Aryan Singh and others - (2023) 18
SCC 399 has held that as per the cardinal
principle of law, at the stage of quashing of
criminal proceedings, the Court is not
required to conduct a mini trial.

13. The said principle has been
reiterated by the Apex Court in the case of
Niharka Infrastructure Private Limited
v. State of Maharashtra and others-
(2021) 19 SCC 401 wherein the Apex
Court has categorically held that while
examining of FIR quashing of which is
sought, Court cannot embark upon an
inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness
or otherwise of the allegations made in the
FIR.

14. From a perusal of the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Muskan (supra) wherein the aforesaid
judgments of Niharka Infrastructure
Private Limited (supra) and Pratima
Mohanty (supra) have already been
referred to, it clearly emerges that the High
Court is not required to conduct a mini trial
while considering the allegations made in
the FIR. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has
finally concluded that the High Court
should not embark upon an inquiry with
regard to the credibility or otherwise of the
allegations in the complaints and the FIR.
Normally, for quashing of an FIR, it must
be shown that there exists no prima facie
case against the accused persons.

15. From a perusal of the impugned
FIR,
it
emerges
that
the
petitioner
alongwith several others have indulged in
an incident. The petitioner has also been
specifically named in the incident and
F.I.R. as well.

16. The grounds as urged by the
learned counsel for the petitioner, if are to
be considered by this Court, would
primarily amount to holding of a mini trial
and an inquiry which has specifically been
restrained by the Apex Court in the cases of
Pratima Mohanty (supra), Aryan Singh
(supra), Niharka Infrastructure Private
Limited (supra) and Muskan (supra)
inasmuch as the genuineness of the
allegations made in the FIR or the
credibility of the witnesses etc cannot be
seen. From a bare perusal of the FIR, a
cognizable offence is made out against the
petitioner

17. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the instant criminal writ petition
is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 1453
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHAWAN PRAKASH, J.

Criminal Revision No. 2128 of 2021

Aditya & Anr. ...Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Revisionist:
Surendra Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
Dinesh Kumar Sharma, G.A., Sanjay Mishra

Issue for Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in
summoning the revisionists as additional
accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. on the