Allahabad High Court
MANOJ SAINI AND 7 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, and therefore no interference was warranted.
Summary
Manoj Saini and seven others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 11‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 351(2) and 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. During the hearing the petitioners limited their relief to protection under section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. The Court examined the FIR, found that it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) to reject the prayer to quash the FIR. 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 writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under sections 351(2) and 318(4) 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 police must adhere to the Supreme Court‑prescribed arrest procedures in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 318(4), 351(2)
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- arrest guidelines
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal writ petition
- police harassment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21549 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 11.8.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.0196 of
2026, under Sections 351(2) and 318(4) 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. 21549 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…