Allahabad High Court
MADHUR SRIVASTAV @ MADHUR PRAKASH SRIVASTAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence; no interference is warranted.
Summary
Madhur Srivastav filed a writ petition seeking the quash of an FIR dated 19 July 2026 that alleged offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the SC/ST Act, later limiting relief to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a cognizable offence, citing Supreme Court precedents that prevent quashing of such FIRs. Consequently, the court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, it 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 petitioner was instructed to cooperate, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 19-07-2026 can be quashed on the grounds raised by the petitioner.
- 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‑mandated arrest procedure in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 132, 303(2), 351(3), 352
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act — s. 31(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)
Subjects
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- section 35 protection
- police arrest guidelines
- SC/ST Act
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- criminal writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21503 of 2026
Madhur Srivastav @ Madhur Prakash Srivastav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankur Rai, Vikalp Kumar Rai
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 19.07.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 389
of 2026, under Sections 352, 351(3), 303(2), 132 of Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 31(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act, Police
Station - Kotwali, District - Azamgarh, 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. 21503 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…