Allahabad High Court
DULARE KHAN AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence and therefore could not be quashed.
Summary
Petitioners Dular Khan and another filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition in the Allahabad High Court seeking to quash an FIR dated 22‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 61(2), 217, 229(2), 301 and 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. While the original prayer was to set aside the FIR, the petitioners later limited their relief to protection under section 35 of the same Act. The Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie cognizable offence, citing Supreme Court precedents that a court cannot interfere to quash an FIR in such circumstances. Consequently, 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 disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cognizable offence.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the High Court can direct the police to adhere to arrest procedures and refrain from harassment during investigation.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 217, 229(2), 301, 35, 356(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- writ petition
- section 35 protection
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- cognizable offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21537 of 2026
Dulare Khan And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Sharma
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 AGA for
the State-respondents.
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. 0414 of 2026, under Sections 61(2), 217, 229(2), 301,
356(2) of B.N.S., 2023, Police Station - Roravar, District -
Aligarh but at the time when the matter is taken up learned
counsel for the petitioners confines their 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.
CRLP No. 21537 of 2026
2
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.
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of.
Septembe
r 9, 2026
vijay (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
krishna
Digitally signed by :-
VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…