Allahabad High Court
R K VERMA @ REENKUversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, though the police must observe proper arrest procedures and refrain from harassing the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner R.K. Verma sought to quash an FIR dated 26 June 2026, registered under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and later limited the relief to protection under Section 35 of the same Act. The Court examined the FIR and found it disclosed a cognizable offence, rendering the prayer to quash untenable in line with Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR but directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, as the alleged offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years. The Court also instructed the police not to harass the petitioner during the investigation and required the petitioner’s cooperation. The writ petition was therefore disposed of without granting the quash order.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Section 316(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita can be quashed.
- Whether protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita is appropriate in the circumstances.
- Whether the police must adhere to the arrest procedure guidelines of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 35
Subjects
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- protective order
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- arrest procedure
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20532 of 2026
R K Verma @ Reenku
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Mishra, Syed Abid Ali
Naqvi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Pranjal Kesarwani, Samrat
Vikram Singh
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Samrat Vikram Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and learned AGA for the
State-respondents.
2. The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 26.06.2026 registered as Case Crime
No.325 of 2026, under Sections 316 (2) of B.N.S., Police Station
Kotwali Dehat, District Mirzapur 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.
CRLP No. 20532 of 2026
2
State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
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 co-operate in the investigation.
7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
September 8,
2026
AKT (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…