Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMAR GAUTAMversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence; no interference is warranted.
Summary
Ajay Kumar Gautam filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 16‑08‑2020 that alleged offences under Sections 420, 406 and 504 IPC. While the original prayer was to set aside the FIR, the petitioner later limited relief to protection under Section 41‑A of the CrPC and Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Allahabad High 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 quash petition. 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. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without any interference in the FIR.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 16‑08‑2020 can be quashed under Section 41‑A of the CrPC or Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- Whether the High Court can intervene in the investigation and arrest procedure in a cognizable offence case
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41-A
- Indian Penal Code — s. 406, 420, 504
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- Section 41-A CrPC
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- arrest guidelines
- cognizable offence
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21529 of 2026
Ajay Kumar Gautam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amarnath 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 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 16.8.2020 giving rise to Case Crime No.618 of
2020, under Sections 420, 406, 504 IPC, Police Station - Cantt., District -
Varanasi, 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. 21529 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…