Allahabad High Court
RANDHIR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR shows a prima facie case of offence and therefore dismissed the petition to quash it.
Summary
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking the quash of an FIR dated 24‑05‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 333 of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 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 be made in strict compliance with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the BNS, 2023 and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar’s case and its own earlier order. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting any relief. The order emphasizes adherence to procedural safeguards when arresting persons accused of offences punishable up to seven years.
Issues considered
- The FIR can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a prima facie case of offence.
- Whether the authorities must follow the procedural safeguards under CrPC and BNS, 2023 while effecting arrest in respect of the offences alleged in the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 333, 351(2), 352, 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- criminal procedure
- arrest guidelines
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- CrPC Section 41
- prima facie offence
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18856 of 2026
Randhir And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Maneesh Kumar, Rajni Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated
24.05.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352,
351(2), 333 of BNS, 2023, Police Station- Kotwali Kalpi, District- Jalaun.
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 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
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.
September 16, 2026
Rama Kant
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…