Allahabad High Court
SANDEEPversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHER
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses the commission of an offence.
Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 19‑06‑2026 under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S). The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash untenable in view of Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR but directed that any arrest under the FIR must strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the B.N.S, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order in Vimal Kumar et al. The petition was therefore disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 19‑06‑2026 disclosing alleged offences under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the High Court may interfere with the FIR in the absence of material infirmities, in light of Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 137(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7), 61(2)
- Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- criminal procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 35 B.N.S
- arrest guidelines
- Supreme Court precedent
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18548 of 2026
Sandeep
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Other
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Srivastava, Reena Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard Sri Mirza Shahwan Beg, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Adarsh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First
Information Report dated 19.06.2026 lodged by Respondent No. 4
giving rise to Crime/ FIR No. 182 of 2026, under Sections 137(2),
61(2) of B.N.S, Police Station- Khurja Dehat, District- Bulandshahr.
3. 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.
4. 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 petitioners 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
CRLP No. 18548 of 2026
2
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 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.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 14, 2026
Israr
Digitally signed by :-
ISRAR AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…