Allahabad High Court
NAZIR AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence, and no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioners challenged the FIR dated 17-08-2026 in Crime No.227, which alleged offences under Sections 75, 191(2), 333, 115(2), 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The High Court examined the FIR and, finding a prima facie case of commission of offence, held that the FIR could not be quashed, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra. While refusing to interfere with the FIR, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly follow the safeguards prescribed in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the B.N.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and its own earlier order in Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 17‑08‑2026 can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cognizable offence.
- Whether the arrest of the petitioners, if effected, must comply with the procedural safeguards under the CrPC, the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and Supreme Court guidelines.
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
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- Arrest safeguards
- Supreme Court precedent
- Writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21599 of 2026
Nazir And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mahesh Kumar
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 17.08.2026 in Case Crime No.227 of 2026, Under Sections
75, 191(2), 333, 115(2), 351(3) B.N.S. and Section 7/8 POCSO Act,
Police Station Kamasin, District Banda.
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. 21599 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…