Allahabad High Court
KIRANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR prima facie discloses an offence and the petition to quash it is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 20.08.2026 that alleged violations of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it prima facie disclosed the commission of an offence, citing Supreme Court precedents that a petition to quash cannot be entertained where the FIR shows a cognizable offence. Consequently, the court refused to interfere with the FIR. However, the court directed that any arrest of the petitioner must strictly comply with the safeguards under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3) to 35(7) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a prior Allahabad High Court order. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence of an offence.
- Whether the procedural safeguards for arrest under the CrPC and the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 are applicable in this case.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955 — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- Essential Commodities Act
- FIR quash
- Arrest procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Procedural safeguards
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21572 of 2026
Kiran
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Deepak Kumar Srivastava, Ganesh
Shanker Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 20.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 0085 of 2026,
under Sections 3 & 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Police
Station- Chilhiya, District- Siddharth Nagar.
3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of
offence and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be
entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases
of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2
SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and
as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in
the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years,
therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of
the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall
ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and
Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as
well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of
this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020
CRLP No. 21572 of 2026
2
(Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported
in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…