Allahabad High Court
ASHOK YADAV AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence; no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioners Ashok Yadav and another filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash an FIR dated 7‑8‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 115(2), 351(3), 304 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the hearing they limited their relief to protection under Section 41‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR, found that it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents that a FIR cannot be set aside merely on a writ petition. 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 and to refrain from harassing the petitioners during the investigation. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 7‑8‑2026 can be quashed on the basis of a writ petition.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under Section 41‑A CrPC / Section 35 B.N.S.
- Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court’s arrest guidelines in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 304, 3(5), 351(3)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- Section 41-A CrPC
- Section 35 B.N.S.
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20552 of 2026
Ashok Yadav And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dezee Yadav, Ray Sahab Yadav
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 Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 7.8.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.242 of
2026, under Sections 115(2), 351(3), 304, 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Police Station - Khuthan, District - Jaunpur, but at the time when the
matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to
grant of protection under section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure / 35 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
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 conclusion
of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners
shall co-operate in the investigation.
CRLP No. 20552 of 2026
2
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
September 8, 2026
safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…