Allahabad High Court
RAKESH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 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
Rakesh Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and later limited his relief to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court examined the FIR, found that it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents to reject the prayer to quash the FIR. Consequently, the Court held that no interference with the FIR was warranted. However, the Court directed the police to follow the arrest procedure laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and to refrain from harassing the petitioner during the investigation, while the petitioner was required to cooperate. The petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the court can direct the police to follow specific arrest guidelines and refrain from harassment during investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4)
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- protective order
- police harassment
- arrest guidelines
- criminal writ petition
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20503 of 2026
Rakesh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Mishra, Shiv Sharan Tripathi
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 the learned AGA for the
State.
2.Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report registered on 18.5.2026 as Case Crime No. 230 of
2026, under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police
Station - Tappal, District - Aligarh, but at the time when the matter is
taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of
protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023.
3.We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie
discloses 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, therefore,
authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the
guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs.
State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
CRLP No. 20503 of 2026
2
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 cooperate in the investigation.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 8, 2026
PK
Digitally signed by :-
PRAVEEN KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…