Allahabad High Court
FIRDAUS AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and therefore no interference is warranted.
Summary
The petitioners, Firdaus and four others, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 12 July 2026 that alleged offences under several sections of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.). During the hearing they limited their relief to protection under section 35 of the B.N.S. 2023. The Court examined the FIR and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that it prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, rendering a quash order impermissible. Consequently, no interference with the FIR was ordered. However, 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 disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 12 July 2026 can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cognizable offence.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court’s arrest guidelines in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 115(2), 190, 191(2), 35, 351(3), 352, 76
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- protective order
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20520 of 2026
Firdaus And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Asharfi Lal Gupta
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pawan Yadav
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for the State and
learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 12.07.2026 registered as Case Crime No.220 of
2026, under Sections 191(2), 190, 115(2), 352, 351(3), 76 of B.N.S., Police
Station - Mauima, District - Prayagraj, 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. 20520 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…