Allahabad High Court
MANOJ SAINI AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence; therefore, no interference is warranted.
Summary
Manoj Saini and seven others filed a writ petition seeking the quash of an FIR dated 14‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 191(1), 316(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The petition was later limited to a request for protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra), held that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and could not be quashed. Consequently, no interference with the FIR was ordered. However, the Court directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, as the offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, and instructed the police not to harass the petitioners while the investigation proceeds. The petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under sections 191(1), 316(2) and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita.
- Whether the court can intervene in the police's arrest procedure in the present case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 191(1), 316(2)
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- protective order
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21545 of 2026
Manoj Saini And 7 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhay Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abdul Majeed, G.A., Sufia Saba, Syed
Shahid Jafri
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; learned Additional Government
Advocate for the State and Ms. Supriya holding brief of Ms. Sufia Saba,
learned counsel for the informant.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 14.8.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.0201 of
2026, under Sections 191(1), 316(2) and 115(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023, Police Station - Sambhal, District - Sambhal but at the time when the
matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioners confines his relief to
grant of protection under section 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
CRLP No. 21545 of 2026
2
(2014) 8 SCC 273.
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.
(Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.)
September 9, 2026
GS
Digitally signed by :-
GAUTAM SONI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…