Allahabad High Court
SANJAY KUMAR TETARBEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, and no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioner Sanjay Kumar Tetarbe filed a writ petition seeking to quash the FIR dated 16‑09‑2018 that alleged offences under IPC sections 420, 406 and 120‑B. The relief was later limited to protection under Section 41‑A of the CrPC. The Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a cognizable offence, making the prayer to quash untenable in view of Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, no interference with the FIR was ordered. However, because the alleged offences carry a maximum sentence of seven years, 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 disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed under Section 41-A of the CrPC or any other provision.
- Whether the High Court can intervene in the arrest and investigation process in a cognizable offence case.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41-A
- Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 406, 420
Subjects
- quash FIR
- Section 41-A CrPC
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- investigation cooperation
- IPC 420
- IPC 406
- IPC 120-B
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21538 of 2026
Sanjay Kumar Tetarbe
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nitin Sharma, Vikash Chandra Tiwari
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 16.09.2018 giving rise to Case Crime No.0988 of 2018, under Sections
420, 406, 120-B of IPC, Police Station - Ghaziabad Kotwali, District - Ghaziabad, 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.
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…