Allahabad High Court
AADHAR CHOUDHARYversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence and therefore cannot be quashed, precluding any interference.
Summary
Petitioner Aadhar Choudhary filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 31.07.2026 that alleged offences under several sections 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 found it disclosed a cognizable offence, citing Supreme Court precedents that a prima facie FIR cannot be set aside. Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was rejected. The Court, however, 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 31.07.2026 can be quashed under sections 316(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352, 110, 115(2), 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 court can intervene in the police's arrest procedure and investigation conduct.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 110, 115(2), 191(2), 191(3), 316(2), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- protective order
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21519 of 2026
Aadhar Choudhary
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Bahadur Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 31.07.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 459
of 2026, under Sections 316(2), 191(2), 191(3), 352, 110, 115(2), 351(3)
of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Nandgram, District -
Ghaziabad, 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
present case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are
CRLP No. 21519 of 2026
2
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.
(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…