Allahabad High Court
HARENDRA GOSWAMIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 19.08.2026 under Section 316(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita (BNS). The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash untenable in line with Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, noting that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, the Court directed the police to strictly observe the arrest safeguards prescribed in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the BNS, and the guidelines from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order. The petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under Section 316(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the police must comply with the procedural safeguards for arrest as mandated by the CrPC and the BNS in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 316(2), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 316
- arrest procedure
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- prima facie offence
- high court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21574 of 2026
Harendra Goswami
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Alok Kumar, Rahul Yadav
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 19.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 0278 of 2026, under
Section 316(2) of BNS, Police Station- Raath, District- Hamirpur.
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 (Vimal Kumar and 3
Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147,
be strictly complied with.
CRLP No. 21574 of 2026
2
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…