Allahabad High Court
Om Tiwari @ Umang Tiwari vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 18 September, 2025
Author: Siddhartha Varma
Bench: Siddhartha Varma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:167627-DB
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20036 of 2025
Om Tiwari @ Umang Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Prateeyush Kumar Pathak, Shantanu Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. In compliance of the earlier order of this Court 10.9.2025, the Investigating Officer Mr.Anil Kumar Verma, SHO, Police Station Cyber Crime, Commissionerate Prayagraj is present before this Court and it has been informed by him that the case was now being investigated into vis-a-vis Sections 66, 66E, 67 and 74 of Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 and the investigating agency, i.e., the police was no longer investigating the case under Sections 351(4), 76, 87, 108 of BNS.
2. The personal presence of Mr.Verma, Investigating Offier is exempted. He need not appear in the case any further.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA for the State.
4. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 11.7.2025 as Case Crime No. 26 of 2025, under Sections 351(4), 76, 87, 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66, 66E, 67, 74 Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008, Police Station - Cyber Crime, District - Prayagraj, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
5. We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.
6. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
7. However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
8. It is expected of the police not to harass the petitioner till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioner shall co-operate in the investigation.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Abdul Shahid,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) September 18, 2025 LN Tripathi