Allahabad High Court
ANUJ KUMAR PANDEY AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence and therefore could not be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, Anuj Kumar Pandey and two others, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 04‑07‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 352, 351(3), 75, 76, 333 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. During the hearing the petitioners limited their relief to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie 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, 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 while the investigation proceeds, subject to their cooperation. The writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR 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 Court should direct the police to adhere to the arrest procedures prescribed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35
- Indian Penal Code — s. 333, 351(3), 352, 75, 76
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- criminal procedure
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- investigation cooperation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20544 of 2026
Anuj Kumar Pandey And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Tripathi, Surya Prakash Pandey
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. The prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 04.07.2026 registered as Case Crime
No.68 of 2026, under Sections 352, 351 (3), 75, 76, 333 B.N.S. and
7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station Lalapur, 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.
6. It is expected of the police not to harass the petitioners till the
CRLP No. 20544 of 2026
2
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.
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…