Allahabad High Court
KAPIL DHAMA AND 2 OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed and no interference was warranted, only directing compliance with arrest guidelines.
Summary
Petitioners Kapil Dhama and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 26 July 2026 that alleged offences under sections 351(2), 352, 351(3) and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. While initially seeking quashal, they later limited their relief to protection under section 41‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR, found it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra) to reject the prayer to quash. No interference was ordered, but the Court directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and to refrain from harassing the petitioners during the investigation. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 26‑07‑2026 can be quashed under sections 351(2), 352, 351(3) and 351(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 41‑A of the CrPC and section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court‑prescribed arrest procedure in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 351(2), 351(3), 351(4), 352
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- section 41-A CrPC
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- police harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20485 of 2026
Kapil Dhama And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atharva Dixit, Pranav Tiwary
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 26.7.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.0288 of
2026, under Sections 351(2), 352, 351(3) and 351(4) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Loni Border, District - Ghaziabad, but at the
time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners confines
his relief to grant of protection under section 41-A of Code of Criminal
Procedure / 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
3. We have perused the the First Information Report, which prima facie
discloses commissioning of cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer
made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib
Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt.
Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.
4. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
5. However, considering the fact that all offences mentioned in the present
case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to
ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court
enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in
(2014) 8 SCC 273.
6. It is expected of the police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion
of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners
shall co-operate in the investigation.
CRLP No. 20485 of 2026
2
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
September 8, 2026
safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…