Allahabad High Court
PAPPU 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 and no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioners Pappu and four others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 20‑08‑2026 under Sections 115(2), 191(2) and 352 of the Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it discloses a prima facie commission of offence, therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. While refusing to set aside the FIR, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly comply with Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the B.N.S. 2023, the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and the directions issued in Vimal Kumar (2021). The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 20‑08‑2026 can be quashed on the grounds raised by the petitioners.
- Whether the authorities must observe the procedural safeguards under CrPC and the Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita while effecting arrests 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, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Arrest procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 35 B.N.S.
- Supreme Court precedent
- Writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21606 of 2026
Pappu And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saurabh Tripathi
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 impugned F.I.R.
dated 20.08.2026 in Case Crime No.201 of 2026 under Sections 115(2),
191(2), 352 Β.N.S., Police Station Manda District Prayagraj.
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 Others Vs.
State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly
CRLP No. 21606 of 2026
2
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…