Allahabad High Court
GAUTAM KUMARversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, and no court interference is warranted.
Summary
Gautam Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 16‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 74 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the hearing the petitioner limited his relief to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR and, relying on Supreme Court precedents, held that it disclosed a cognizable offence and therefore could not be set aside. Consequently, no interference with the FIR was warranted. The Court, however, directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and to refrain from harassing the petitioner during the investigation. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 74 and 333 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the High Court may interfere with the police’s arrest procedure in a cognizable offence case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 333, 74
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- protection order
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21488 of 2026
Gautam Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Singh
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 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 16.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 242
of 2026, under Sections 74 and 333 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023,
Police Station - Nababganj, District - Farrukhabad but at the time when
the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner 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
CRLP No. 21488 of 2026
2
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
petitioner 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…