Allahabad High Court
KANHAI AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a cognizable offence and cannot be quashed, but the police must adhere to arrest guidelines and not harass the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners Kanhai and three others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 16 July 2026 that alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the SC/ST Act. During the hearing they limited their relief to a protection order under section 35 of the B.N.S. The Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a cognizable offence, citing Supreme Court precedents that a FIR cannot be set aside on such a basis. Consequently, no interference with the FIR was ordered. However, because the offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, the Court directed the police to follow the arrest procedures laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and to refrain from harassing the petitioners during the investigation. The petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cognizable offence
- Whether protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be granted
- Whether the police must follow the arrest guidelines for offences punishable up to seven years
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 118(1), 191(2), 35, 351(3), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(1)(Da), 3(1)(Dha)
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- protective order
- section 35
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- SC/ST Act
- arrest guidelines
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- police harassment
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20519 of 2026
Kanhai And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Krishna Datta Tiwari, Yogesh Tiwari
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 AGA for the State-
respondents.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 16.07.2026 registered as Case Crime No.202 of
2026, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 351(3), 352 of B.N.S. and
Sections 3(1)(Da) and 3(1)(Dha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Vishunpura,
District - Khushi 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 35 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
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.
CRLP No. 20519 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 co-operate in the investigation.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 8, 2026
M.S. Ansari
Digitally signed by :-
MOHD SAQIB ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…