Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MITHLESH YADAV @ DADA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U. P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, and therefore no interference was warranted.

Summary

The petitioners, Mithlesh Yadav @ Dada and two others, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash an FIR dated 24‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 110, 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. While initially asking for the FIR to be set aside, the petitioners later limited their 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 Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) to reject the prayer to quash the FIR. No interference 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 petitioners during the investigation. The petition was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the FIR dated 24‑08‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of cognizable offence.
  • Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 41‑A of the CrPC/section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
  • Whether the police must adhere to the Supreme Court‑prescribed arrest procedures in this case.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal procedure
  • FIR quash
  • cognizable offence
  • arrest guidelines
  • section 41-A protection
  • writ petition
  • high court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

       CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21524 of 2026

Mithlesh Yadav @ Dada And 2 Others
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U. P. And 3 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                  :    Pramod Kumar Tripathi
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 24.8.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.0517 of
2026, under Sections 110, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Police Station - Karvi Kotwali Nagar, District - Chitrakoot, but at the
time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners till the conclusion
of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners
shall co-operate in the investigation.
                                                                                         CRLP No. 21524 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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.