Allahabad High Court
SANDEEPversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition to quash the FIR was dismissed as no case was made out for interference.
Summary
The petitioner filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 09.03.2026, registered under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S, alleging false implication. The respondent State argued that a cognizable offence was disclosed and interference was not warranted. The Court examined the FIR and, relying on the Supreme Court precedents in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Leelavati Devi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, held that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and there was no ground to interfere. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court directing the petitioner to seek anticipatory bail or bail before the appropriate court. The decision underscores the limited scope of judicial intervention in FIRs where the facts, on their face, indicate a cognizable offence.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under Sections 137(2) and 61(2) of the B.N.S can be quashed on the ground of false implication.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the FIR under the principles laid down in Bhajan Lal and subsequent Supreme Court judgments.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S. — s. 137(2), 61(2)
Subjects
- quash FIR
- cognizable offence
- anticipatory bail
- criminal procedure
- Section 137(2) B.N.S
- Section 61(2) B.N.S
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21559 of 2026
Sandeep
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Bind
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned First Information
Report dated 09.03.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 51 of 2026, under Sections
137(2) and 61(2) of B.N.S, Police Station Nawabganj, District - Farrukhabad and a
direction to the respondent authorities not to arrest the petitioner in pursuance of the
impugned first information report.
2. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been
falsely implicated.
3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submits that a cognizable offence has been made out
and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the impugned first information report.
4. Perusal of the impugned first information report prima facie reveals commission of
cognizable offence.
5. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Haryana and others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 and
M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1918
and in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.3262/2021 (Leelavati Devi @ Leelawati &
another vs. the State of Uttar Pradesh) decided on 07.10.2021, no case has been made
out for interference with the impugned first information report.
6. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to apply
before the competent court for anticipatory bail/bail as permissible under law and in
accordance with law.
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…