Allahabad High Court
VIPIN BANSALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence, and no interference with the investigation is warranted.
Summary
Vipin Bansal filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 11‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1965. During the hearing the petitioner limited his relief to protection under Section 41‑A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR, found that it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) to reject the prayer to quash the FIR. No interference with the investigation was ordered, but 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. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 41‑A of the CrPC and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the court should intervene in the arrest procedure and police conduct during the investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41-A
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1965 — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
- quash FIR
- Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- Section 41-A CrPC
- Section 35 BNSS
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21522 of 2026
Vipin Bansal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sandip Kumar Pandey
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 11.8.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 353 of
2026, under Section 3/4 of The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1965,
Police Station - Shamli, District - Shamli, but at the time when the matter is
taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of
protection under section 41-A of Code of Criminal Procedure / 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 petitioner till the conclusion
of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioner shall
co-operate in the investigation.
CRLP No. 21522 of 2026
2
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
September 9, 2026
safi
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MAHBOOB SAFI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…