Allahabad High Court
KHAJAN SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence, but the police must follow the arrest guidelines and refrain from harassing the petitioners.
Summary
The petitioners, Khajan Singh and another, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 06‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 420 and 120B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and later limited their relief to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and, finding a prima facie cognizable offence, held that the petition to quash the FIR could not be entertained, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. While refusing to interfere with the FIR, the Court directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, given that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years. The Court also instructed the police not to harass the petitioners during the investigation and ordered the petitioners to cooperate. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Can the FIR under Sections 420 and 120B of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita be quashed?
- Do the petitioners merit protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita?
- Must the police adhere to the arrest procedures prescribed in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar?
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 120B, 420
Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- FIR Quash
- Section 35 Protection
- Arrest Guidelines
- Cognizable Offence
- Writ Petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21487 of 2026
Khajan Singh And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pavan Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Jitendra Pal Singh Chauhan
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 06.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 392 of 2026, under Sections
420 and 120B IPC of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Najibabad,
District - Bijnor, 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.
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.
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 9, 2026
S.K.S.
Digitally signed by :-
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…