Allahabad High Court
RAJKAPOOR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, and therefore no interference is warranted.
Summary
The petitioners, Rajkapoor and another, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking the quash of an FIR dated 08‑07‑2026 under sections 74, 115(2), 351(3) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, later limiting relief to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR and found it disclosed a cognizable offence, relying on Supreme Court precedents that prevent the quashing of FIRs where prima facie evidence exists. Consequently, the Court held that no interference with the FIR was warranted. 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 petitioners during the investigation. The petitioners were ordered to cooperate, and the writ petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 08‑07‑2026 can be quashed under the writ petition.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court’s arrest guidelines in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 74
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- writ petition
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21520 of 2026
Rajkapoor And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akash Kumar Nishad, Ashutosh Kumar
Shukla
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 petitioners 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 08.07.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 215 of 2026, under Sections
74, 115(2), 351(3). 352 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station -
Kaptanganj, District - Azamgarh, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned
counsel for the petitioners 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 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 petitioners 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…