Allahabad High Court
DHARMENDRA YADAV AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.
Summary
The petitioners, Dharmendra Yadav and six others, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR dated 8‑8‑2026 registered under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and Sections 3/4 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash the FIR 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 follow the arrest safeguards prescribed in CrPC Sections 41(1)(b) and 41‑A, B.N.S. Sections 35(3)‑35(7), and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a prior Allahabad High Court judgment. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence
- Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence under the cited statutes
- Whether the arrest of the petitioners must comply with statutory safeguards and Supreme Court guidelines
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7), 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
- Dangerous Drugs Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- quash FIR
- prima facie offence
- arrest safeguards
- Section 41 CrPC
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21609 of 2026
Dharmendra Yadav And 6 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Kumar Bhardwaj, Rajjan
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 8.8.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 0193 of 2026, Under
Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of B.N.S., and Section 3/4 D.P. Act,
Police Station- Jafrabad, District-Jaunpur.
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
CRLP No. 21609 of 2026
2
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.
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…