Allahabad High Court
RAJESH KUMAR GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence and therefore no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioner Rajesh Kumar Goswami filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 22‑02‑2026 under sections 125(b) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and later limited his relief to protection under section 41‑A of the CrPC and section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a cognizable offence, making the prayer to quash untenable in line with the Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. Consequently, the Court declined any interference with the FIR. However, it directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and to refrain from harassing the petitioner during the investigation. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 22‑02‑2026 can be quashed under sections 125(b) and 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under section 41‑A of the CrPC / section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court‑prescribed arrest procedures in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 125(b), 281
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- criminal procedure
- arrest guidelines
- protection order
- high court writ petition
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- police harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20488 of 2026
Rajesh Kumar Goswami
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pooja Chand Dwivedi, Saumya Singh
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 petitioner 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 22.2.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.0042 of
2026, under Sections 125(b), 281 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police
Station - Kakadeo (Central), District - Kanpur Nagar, 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 petitioner till the conclusion
of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioner shall
co-operate in the investigation.
CRLP No. 20488 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…