Allahabad High Court
ANURAG GOYALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court declined to quash the FIR and did not grant the protection order, but directed the police to follow Supreme Court arrest guidelines and not harass the petitioner.
Summary
Anurag Goyal filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash an FIR dated 08‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 318(4) and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the hearing the petitioner limited his relief to a protection order 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 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 warranted. 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. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash the FIR dated 08‑08‑2026 under sections 318(4) and 351(3) of 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 arrest guidelines prescribed by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 351(3)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- protection order
- arrest guidelines
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21509 of 2026
Anurag Goyal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Achintya Kumar, Mayank
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 08.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 539
of 2026, under Sections 318(4) and 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Police Station - Jait, District - Mathura, 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. 21509 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…