Harvir Singh,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Ajay Srivastava leaned counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition seeks quashing of the FIR dated 19.03.2025, giving rise to Case Crime No.79 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3), 109, 125 B.N.S., P.S. Nandganj, District Ghazipur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners 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 as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 4 has vehemently oppose the said prayer and has submitted that in the incident in question, Ayush Rai and Mayank suffered injuries and has been medically examined and from the allegation made in the first information report, prima facie offence, complained of is clearly disclosed against the petitioners 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, 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 fact that two victims, namely, Ayush Rai and Mayank has suffered injuries and has been medically examined and from the allegations made in the FIR and the relevant law cited by the learned AGA and the fact that impugned FIR disclosed cognizable offence, we are of the opinion that the impugned FIR cannot be quashed.

6. The prayer for quashing the impugned first information report is, therefore, refused.

7. However, in case, the petitioners files an application for anticipatory/regular bail before the appropriate Court, their bail application be considered and disposed of as expeditiously as possible, in accordance with law. 8. With these observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.