Allahabad High Court
MAYANK BHATNAGARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed and no interference is warranted, though it directed the police to follow arrest guidelines and not harass the petitioner.
Summary
Mayank Bhatnagar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 25‑07‑2026 under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and later limited his relief to protection under Section 35 of the same Act. The Court examined the FIR, found that it disclosed a cognizable offence, and relied on Supreme Court precedents that a FIR cannot be set aside merely on the petitioner's claim. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the FIR but directed the police to follow the arrest procedures laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and to refrain from harassing the petitioner during the investigation. The petitioner was instructed to cooperate with the investigation, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 25‑07‑2026 can be quashed under Section 316(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
- Whether the police must adhere to the arrest guidelines of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and avoid harassment of the petitioner.
Legislation cited
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(4), 35
Subjects
- criminal procedure
- FIR quash
- protection order
- arrest guidelines
- police harassment
- writ petition
- cognizable offence
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21555 of 2026
Mayank Bhatnagar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nagendra Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. Sri Raghvendra Prakash, learned Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on
behalf of respondent No. 4, which is taken on record.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the
informant, Sri Raghvendra Prakash and learned AGA for the State-
respondents.
3. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First
Information Report dated 25.07.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.573 of
2026, under Section 316(4) of B.N.S, 2023, Police Station - Kotwali City,
District - Bijnor, 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.
4. 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.
5. We are of the view that no interference is warranted.
6. 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. 21555 of 2026
2
7. 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.
8. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed.
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…