Allahabad High Court
MD OQAIS AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed and no interference is warranted, but the police must follow the arrest guidelines and must not harass the petitioner.
Summary
The petitioner, Md Oqais Ahmad, filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 26-07-2026 that alleged offences under sections 318(4), 61(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and later limited the relief to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR and, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra), held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and could not be set aside. 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 petitioner during the investigation, while the petitioner was required to cooperate. The writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 26-07-2026 can be quashed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court‑prescribed arrest guidelines in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 351(3), 352, 61(2)
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- protective order
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21499 of 2026
Md Oqais Ahmad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohd Nasir, Mohd. Gufran
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Criminal Misc. Exemption Application is allowed.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Mohd Nasir and Mr.
Adnan Amir in behalf of the first informant, and learned Additional
Government Advocate for the State.
3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 26.07.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 613
of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 61(2), 352. 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Kawarsi, District - Aligarh, 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.
4. 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.
5. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
6. However, considering the fact that all offences mentioned in the
CRLP No. 21499 of 2026
2
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.
7. 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.
8. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
September 9, 2026
S.K.S.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SUNIL KUMAR SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…