Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RISHU TIWARI @ SHASHWAT TRIPATHI MINORversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 5 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence and no interference is warranted.

Summary

The petition filed by minor Rishu Tiwari @ Shashwat Tripathi sought to quash an FIR dated 21‑07‑2026 that alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act. The petitioner later limited relief to protection under Section 41‑A of the CrPC and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR, found it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents that a FIR cannot be set aside merely on the basis of alleged insufficiency. 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 investigation. The writ petition was disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the FIR dated 21‑07‑2026 can be quashed under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the POCSO Act.
  • Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 41‑A of the CrPC and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
  • Whether the police must adhere to the arrest guidelines prescribed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal procedure
  • FIR quash
  • cognizable offence
  • section 41-A protection
  • arrest guidelines
  • minor
  • POCSO
  • Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 20556 of 2026

Rishu Tiwari @ Shashwat Tripathi Minor
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 5 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A., Kamal Kishor Mishra, Kavita
                                 Nishad, Sanjeev Kumar

Court No. - 44
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
                 HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 21.07.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0280
of 2026, under Sections 74, 351(3), 352, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3) of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and 7/3 of POCSO Act, Police Station -
Gorakhnath, District - Gorakhpur, but at the time when the matter is taken
up learned counsel for the petitioner 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
                                                                                         CRLP No. 20556 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    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.

                                    7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.




                                                          (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    S.K.S.




Digitally signed by :-
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.