The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has granted interim protection from coercive action to an individual, Arpit Tiwari, who alleged that he was being repeatedly and falsely implicated in criminal cases at the behest of a Sub-Inspector due to a personal altercation.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad passed the order in a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash FIR No. 0269 of 2025, registered at Police Station Tarun, District Ayodhya.
Background
The petitioner, Arpit Tiwari, approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned F.I.R. registered under Sections 61(2), 109(1), 115(2), 324(4), 351(3), 352, 117(2), 191(2), 191(3), 61(2)(a), and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
The petitioner’s primary contention was that his implication in the FIR was a result of malafide intentions held by respondent no. 5, a Sub-Inspector currently posted at P.S. Tarun, Ayodhya. The petitioner alleged that following an altercation with the said officer on September 5, 2022, he has been subjected to repeated criminal implications despite not being named in the initial reports.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioner: The petitioner was represented by Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, Shri Abhishek Singh and Shri Gautam Singh Yadav. They argued that the petitioner’s name surfaced solely based on the “confessional statement of co-accused,” which they maintained is “not admissible under law.” They further submitted that at the time of the alleged incident, the petitioner was in Surat, Gujarat. It was also noted that representations made to various authorities regarding the alleged harassment had gone unconsidered.
Counsel for the Respondents: The State and the Government Advocate (G.A.) were represented by the learned A.G.A. for the State. The learned A.G.A. opposed the petition, stating that instructions indicated the petitioner’s “complicity” had been found during the investigation. The State contended that there were records of a telephonic call and WhatsApp chat between the petitioner and the accused persons who committed the crime on the spot.
However, the A.G.A. admitted that because a “WhatsApp call was made by the petitioner from his mobile, the Call Data Record (CDR) could not be procured.” Regarding the allegations of malafide, the State argued that such claims are “premature and not tenable at this stage” as the investigation is ongoing, relying on the precedent of Union of India and another Versus W.N. Chadha; 1993 SCC (Cri) 1171.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Court took note of the petitioner’s supplementary affidavit disclosing the details of cases registered against him. During the proceedings, the Court observed that the A.G.A. could not dispute that the petitioner’s name surfaced through a co-accused’s confession.
The Bench noted that the A.G.A. “could not get instructions in regard to the mala fide” and merely submitted that such allegations were not present in the initial representations.
Decision of the Court
Finding that the matter requires further consideration, the Court issued notice to the private respondents (opposite parties no. 4 and 5) and directed the State to file a counter affidavit within three weeks.
Granting interim relief, the Bench held:
“Till the next date of listing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner in connection with the impugned F.I.R., subject to his co-operation in the investigation.”
The Court specifically directed the petitioner to appear before the Investigating Officer on March 15, 2026, and continue to cooperate as required, warning that failure to do so could result in the vacation of the interim order. The case is scheduled for its next hearing in the week commencing April 13, 2026.
Case Details:
- Case Name: Arpit Tiwari Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko And Others
- Case No: CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No.-907 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad
- Counsel for Petitioner: Shri Akhand Pratap Pandey, Shri Gautam Singh Yadav, Shri Abhishek Singh
- Counsel for Respondents: G.A.
- Order Date: March 11, 2026
