Allahabad High Court
ISMAIL AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.
Summary
Petitioners Ismail and three others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 30.07.2026 registered under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The High 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 prima facie commission of offence and therefore could not be quashed. While refusing the prayer to set aside the FIR, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the BNS, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a prior Allahabad High Court order. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 30.07.2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence of offence.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to relief against arrest pending investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- FIR quash
- prima facie offence
- arrest procedure
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Supreme Court precedent
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21507 of 2026
Ismail And 3 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deshraj Garg
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 30.07.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 0279 of 2026,
under Sections 85, 118(1), 115(2), 351(3), 352, 3(5) of BNS, Police
Station- Rasoolabad, District- Kanpur Dehat.
3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of
offence and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be
entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2
SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and
as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in
the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years,
therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioners in pursuance of
the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall
ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and
Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as
well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of
this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020
CRLP No. 21507 of 2026
2
(Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported
in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…