Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Seth vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 30 May, 2025
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:93287-DB Court No. - 43 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11315 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sanjay Seth Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- D.M.Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Jitendra Kumar Sinha,J.
1. Heard Sri D.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
2. Present petition has been filed for quashing the FIR dated 24.1.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0030/2025 under section 316 (5) of BNS, P.S. Shahganj, District Jaunpur within stipulated period. A further prayer has been made not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned FIR.
3. We find that in the cause list, two other petitions arising out of the same FIR are being reflected. Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10402 of 2025 (Om Prakash Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others) was disposed of vide order dated 21.8.2025. The said order is quoted as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 24.01.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 30 of 2025, under Sections 316(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S. Shahganj, District-Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the instant first information report is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is a bank employee and the keys of the safe was entrusted to him and from the said safe certain gold ornaments belonging to the customers of the bank has been misappropriated and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report cannot be quashed.
6. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused.
7. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
4. Another petition being Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 10923 of 2025 (Shivprasad Kori vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others) was also disposed of vide order dated 28.5.2025 and the same is quoted as under:
"1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 24.01.2025 giving rise to Case Crime No. 30 of 2025, under Sections 316(5) of Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, P.S. Shahganj, District-Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie no offence, complained of, is disclosed against the petitioner and, as such, the instant first information report is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the petitioner is a bank employee and the keys of the safe was entrusted to him and from the said safe certain gold ornaments belonging to the customers of the bank has been misappropriated and, as such, the first information report cannot be quashed in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and in a recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 843 of 2024, Directorate Enforcement Vs. Niraj Tyagi and others.
5. Having considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the allegations made in the first information report and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned first information report discloses cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned first information report cannot be quashed.
6. The prayer for quashing of the first information report is therefore, refused.
7. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
5. Accordingly, the present petition is also dismissed being not maintainable and even otherwise, the petitions filed by the two other persons against the same impugned FIR having already been dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.5.2025 Madhurima