Allahabad High Court
HARILALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a cognizable offence and therefore no interference is warranted.
Summary
Harilal filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 22‑08‑2026 under Sections 2, 3 and 5 of the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984. During the hearing he limited his relief to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The Court examined the FIR, found it disclosed a cognizable offence and, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani (2017) and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2021), held that the petition to quash the FIR could not be entertained. No interference with the investigation was ordered, but the Court directed the police to follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and to refrain from harassing the petitioner. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under the Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984 can be quashed.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the High Court can intervene in the arrest and investigation procedure.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
- police harassment
- arrest guidelines
- writ petition
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21551 of 2026
Harilal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Janam Shahi
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 22.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.0262 of 2026, under Sections
2, 3 and 5 Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station -
Phoolpur, District - Azamgarh, 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
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.
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…