Allahabad High Court
RAVINDRA KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR discloses a prima facie cognizable offence and therefore cannot be quashed.
Summary
Petitioner Ravindra Kumar filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 02‑03‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 66C of the Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008. The relief was later limited to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR, found a prima facie cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) to reject the prayer to quash the FIR. While refusing interference, the Court directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, as the offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years, and instructed the police not to harass the petitioner during the investigation. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 02‑03‑2026 can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cognizable offence.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the police must adhere to the arrest guidelines of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 319(2), 3(5)
- Information Technology (Amendment) Act, 2008 — s. 66C
Subjects
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- criminal procedure
- arrest guidelines
- cybercrime
- Section 66C IT Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21501 of 2026
Ravindra Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Chaudhary
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 02.03.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 006
of 2026, under Sections 3(5), 318(4), 319(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 and under Section 66C of Information Technology (Amendment)
Act, 2008, Police Station - Cyber Crime Police Station Mau, District -
Mau, 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
CRLP No. 21501 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
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…