Allahabad High Court
JUGENDRAversusSTATE OF UP AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence, and no interference is warranted, though the police must adhere to proper arrest guidelines and not harass the petitioner.
Summary
Jugendra filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 07‑08‑2026 (Case Crime No. 0190 of 2026) that alleged offences under sections 74, 76, 352 and 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The petitioner later limited his relief to protection under section 35 of the same Act. The High Court examined the FIR, found it disclosed a cognizable offence, and held that, in line with Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra), the FIR cannot be quashed. 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 petitioner during the investigation. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 07‑08‑2026 can be quashed under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from police harassment pending investigation.
- Whether the court can direct the police to follow specific arrest procedures in a cognizable offence case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35, 351(3), 352, 74, 76
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- writ petition
- section 35 protection
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21531 of 2026
Jugendra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Up And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Bhushan Rai
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 AGA for the State-respondents.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information
Report dated 07.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No. 0190 of 2026, under Sections
74, 76, 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., Police Station - Gunnaur, District - Sambhal, Contained
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, 2023.
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.
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
September 9, 2026
vijay krishna
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…