Allahabad High Court
LAL CHAND AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.
Summary
Petitioners Lal Chand and four others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 19 July 2026 that alleged offences under several provisions of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the petition to quash the FIR untenable, in line with Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, noting that the alleged offences carry a maximum imprisonment of seven years, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly follow the arrest safeguards prescribed in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the Cr.P.C., Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the B.N.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and the directions issued in Vimal Kumar et al. v. State of U.P. The writ petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 19‑07‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the FIR in view of Supreme Court precedents
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- prima facie case
- arrest safeguards
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 35 B.N.S.
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- criminal writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21585 of 2026
Lal Chand And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ghanshyam Krishna Dwivedi, Vinod
Singh
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 petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 19.07.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0216 of 2026,
under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 74, 126(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) and 3(5) of
B.N.S., Police Station Salempur, District Bulandshahr.
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 petitioners 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 Cr.P.C./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 reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated
CRLP No. 21585 of 2026
2
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.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Rakesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…