Allahabad High Court
ZAID AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.
Summary
Petitioners Zaid and another filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 17.05.2026, registered under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the B.N.S. The Court examined the FIR and held that it discloses a prima facie commission of offence, citing Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was rejected. However, because the offences attract a maximum imprisonment of seven years, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly follow the arrest safeguards under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and earlier directions of this Court. The writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence
- Whether the arrest of the petitioners must comply with statutory safeguards
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- quash FIR
- prima facie offence
- arrest safeguards
- CrPC
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- writ petition
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21596 of 2026
Zaid And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Tabish Yusufi, Zia Uddin
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 17.05.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 181 of 2026 Under
Sections 115(2), 352, 351 (3) B.N.S. Police Station Rorawar, District
Aligarh.
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.
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
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
CRLP No. 21596 of 2026
2
Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147,
be strictly complied with.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed
of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 23, 2026
Vipasha
Digitally signed by :-
VIPASHA MUKHERJEE
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…