Allahabad High Court
SANDEEP SONI @ SANDEEP SETH @ GOLI SETHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence and no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioner Sandeep Soni sought to quash an FIR dated 22‑08‑2026 filed under sections 318(4), 352 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, and later limited the relief to protection under section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a cognizable offence, making the prayer to quash untenable in view of Supreme Court precedents. Accordingly, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, it directed the investigating authorities to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 22‑08‑2026 can be quashed under the Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the arrest procedure must conform to the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35
- Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 351(3), 352
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- arrest procedure
- section 35 protection
- criminal procedure
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21534 of 2026
Sandeep Soni @ Sandeep Seth @ Goli Seth
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Babu Lal Ram, Gyanendra Kumar
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.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information
Report dated 22.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.269 of 2026, under Sections
318(4), 352, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Khuthan, District
- Jaunpur, 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 the Bhartiya Nagrik
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, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the
procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of
Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the
directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.1.2021 of this Court passed in
Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020.
6. 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…