Allahabad High Court
SHASHANK SAXENAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence and no interference is warranted.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the FIR dated 14 July 2026, which alleged offences under Sections 356, 117(2), 115(2) of the Bharatiya 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 the FIR untenable. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra), the Court found no ground for interference. However, noting that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly observe the arrest safeguards under 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 in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and the earlier Allahabad High Court order. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the FIR in view of Supreme Court jurisprudence
- Whether the arrest of the petitioner must comply with 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)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Arrest safeguards
- Prima facie case
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20242 of 2026
Shashank Saxena
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harsh Kumar Anand, Saquib Mukhtar,
Yawar Mukhtar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
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 14.07.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 466 of 2026, under
Sections 356, 117(2), 115(2) B.N.S., 2023, Police Station Bisrakh,
District Gautam Buddha Nagar.
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
CRLP No. 20242 of 2026
2
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 18, 2026
Nisha
Digitally signed by :-
nisha kumari
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…