Allahabad High Court
Anjali Shukla And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 October, 2025
Author: Saurabh Srivastava
Bench: Saurabh Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:177891
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22528 of 2025
Anjali Shukla And 4 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Maha Prasad
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 77
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State.
2. The present application has been preferred for seeking quashing of cognizance/summoning order dated 14.02.2025 alongwith entire criminal proceedings of Case No.10030 of 2025 (State Vs. Anjali Shukla and others), arising out of Case Crime No.206 of 2024, under Section 189(2), 223(B) of BNS, P.S. Tiwaripur, District Gorakhpur, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gorakhpur.
3. It is the case of applicants that all the applicants are pursuing certain courses in Deen Dayal Upadhyay University, Gorakhpur and on the date of incident, they were raising alarm in the society in support of Palestine where the genocide has been extended by Israel which was in good faith of humanity since Government of India has also shown sympathetic concern over the people which were disturbed in Palestine and as such, the entire proceedings initiated against applicants, is against all cannons of fairness and the FIR through which the applicants were implicated which culminated into submission chargesheet whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken by learned court concerned, is bad in the eye of law since the case of applicants is covered under Article 19(1) of Constitution of India. Learned counsel for applicants also submitted that the decent act performed by applicants, has been put under unwarranted criminal litigation and the allegations whatsoever have been fastened upon applicants, are no covered under any offence.
4. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for applicants placed reliance upon some judgments passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Himmat Lal K. Shah Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahemdabad and another [1973 1 SCC 227] and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan Vs. Union of India and another [2018 (17) SCC 324].
5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant application on the ground that there was hardly any permission sought by applicants for making any group alarm in the society by way of raising voice of people of Palestine who are being disturbed by Israel in Palestine. Learned AGA also submitted that the FIR which has been registered against applicants, has never been put under challenged and as such, the applicants are bound to appear before learned court concerned in pursuance of summoning order dated 14.02.2025.
6. After having rival submission extended by learned counsel for parties, this Court is of the view that the arguments raised by learned counsel for applicants, have to be cross-examined with the cases relied upon wherein the verdicts of Hon'ble the Apex Court have been extended in favour of those who were the registered union/Sangathan as well as where the persons belong to specific community who decided to hold some meeting for certain cause. In both the cases, there is hardly any challenge to the proceedings initiated at the behest of registration of any FIR and moreover, the ratio of both the judgments i.e. Himmat Lal K. Shah (supra) and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for applicants, are pertain to holding some meeting for that, they may need not any specific permission from the concerned authorities wherein the rights pertain to the citizen available under Article 19(1) of Constitution of India, has been described in detail. By plain reading of both the judgments, it is crystal clear that the same are not applicable in the instant matter since the matter which has been put under challenge through the instant application, is the proceedings initiated at the behest of Case Crime No.206 of 2024 wherein chargesheet has been preferred after conducting detailed investigation, whereupon cognizance of offence has been taken by learned court concerned.
7. At the time of raising arguments in the instant matter, no procedural illegality has been highlighted by learned counsel for applicants in respect of the proceedings initiated through FIR which culminated into up to taking cognizance of offence. There is also hardly any document available in the instant application which would go to show that the applicants have ever been authorized in any manner whatsoever to raise alarm in the society in support of the people who are being disturbed in Palestine by any of action carried out by Israel. Although, the matter between Israel and Palestine cannot be the matter which has to be discussed or demonstrated amongst the society by group of people by way of disturbing the peace of society, the Indian citizens are having equal rights which has already been demonstrated by learned counsel for applicants not to being disturbed by any group or community under the garb of raising alarm for the disturbed people who are residing inside the country. The foreign matter has to be dealt by due care by the Government of India itself.
9. In sofar as the present matter is concerned, there is hardly any merit which requires consideration of this Court and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed.
10. Accordingly, the instant application is dismissed.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.) October 7, 2025 Vivek Kr.