Allahabad High Court
AHSAN USMANI AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a cognizable offence and therefore cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners sought to quash an FIR dated 08.08.2026 that alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and the SC/ST Act, later limiting relief to protection under section 35 of the B.N.S. The Court examined the FIR and found it disclosed a cognizable offence, citing Supreme Court precedents that prevent quashing in such circumstances. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere 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 petitioners during the investigation. The petitioners were instructed to cooperate with the investigation. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that the alleged acts do not constitute a cognizable offence.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the court should direct the police to adhere to specific arrest procedures and refrain from harassment during investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 35, 351(2), 352
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 3(2)(gha), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- section 35 protection
- arrest guidelines
- SC/ST Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20530 of 2026
Ahsan Usmani And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankit Tiwari, Lalit Kumar Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pradeep Kumar
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-
respondents and learned counsel appearing for the informant.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 08.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0277 of
2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)(v) and
3(2)(gha) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Saini, District - Kaushambi, 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. 20530 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…