Allahabad High Court
IMRAN AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed and no interference is warranted, only directing compliance with arrest guidelines and non‑harassment of the petitioners.
Summary
Petitioners Imran and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR registered on 10‑08‑2026 under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the hearing they limited their relief to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court examined the FIR, found it disclosed a cognizable offence and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that the petition to quash the FIR could not be entertained. No interference with the FIR 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 petitioners were directed to cooperate, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under 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, 2023 — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 351(2), 352
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- protective order
- criminal writ petition
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20506 of 2026
Imran And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ekansh Varma, Pankaj Kumar 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 petitioners Sri J.N. Shukla holding brief
of Sri Ekansh Varma and the learned AGA for the State.
2. Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report registered on 10.8.2026 as Case Crime No. 75 of
2026, under Sections 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Moradabad, but at the
time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners
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. 20506 of 2026
2
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 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…