Allahabad High Court
RAJKUMAR AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the FIR discloses a prima facie offence and cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 25‑02‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 329(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra), held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie case and therefore could not be set aside. While refusing the quash petition, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the Criminal Procedure Code, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order in Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020. The petition was consequently dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie case warranting quashment of the FIR
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief under the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in quash‑FIR cases
- Whether the arrest, if effected, must comply with statutory safeguards under Cr.P.C. 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, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- prima facie case
- arrest procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal writ petition
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20257 of 2026
Rajkumar And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandeep Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 25.02.2026 registering Case Crime No. 0060 of 2026, under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 324(4) and 329(3) B.N.S., Police Station-
Soraon, District-Prayagraj.
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
Cr.P.C/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,
CRLP No. 20257 of 2026
2
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
Anurag/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG KUMAR VERMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…