Allahabad High Court
ATUL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHER
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.
Summary
Petitioner Atul Yadav filed a writ petition challenging the FIR dated 27 June 2026 in Crime No.133, which alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 353 and 74 of the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash the FIR untenable, in line with Supreme Court precedents. While refusing to set aside the FIR, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioner must strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a prior Allahabad High Court order. The Court therefore disposed of the writ petition without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 27‑06‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case.
- Whether the FIR discloses sufficient material to warrant continuation of criminal proceedings.
- Whether the arrest, if effected, must adhere to statutory safeguards under CrPC and the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 353, 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- prima facie case
- arrest procedure
- Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18545 of 2026
Atul Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dwijendra Prasad
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Sanjay Kumar Mishra, Satish
Mishra
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the A.G.A. for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report
dated 27.06.2026 in Case Crime No.133 of 2026 Under Section 115(2),
353, 74 Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita (B.N.S.), 2023 P.S. Eka, District
Firozabad.
We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of
offence and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be
entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases 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 as such, we are of the
view that no interference is warranted.
However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the
impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in
case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned
FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the
specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of
CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued
in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal
CRLP No. 18545 of 2026
2
Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs.
State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly
complied with.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 14, 2026
Vipasha
Digitally signed by :-
VIPASHA MUKHERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…