Allahabad High Court
KHUSHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses prima facie cognizable offences, and the authorities must observe the prescribed procedural safeguards before any arrest.
Summary
The petitioners, Khushi and another, filed a writ petition challenging an FIR dated 11‑08‑2026 under Section 137(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita (BNS) alleging cognizable offences. The High Court examined the FIR and, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra), held that the FIR disclosed prima facie cognizable offences and therefore could not be quashed. 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 BNS, the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and its own earlier directions in Vimal Kumar et al. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Section 137(2) BNS can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a cognizable offence.
- Whether the authorities must comply with the procedural safeguards under CrPC and BNS before arresting the petitioners.
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
- cognizable offence
- procedural safeguards
- arrest
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 137
- Section 41
- Section 35
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21610 of 2026
Khushi And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajay Kumar Srivastava, Shivangi
Bhargava
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 11.08.2026 as Case Crime No. 0539 of 2026, Under Section 137(2) of
BNS at Police Station Civil Lince, District Moradabad.
We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses cognizable offences
against the petitioners 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.
CRLP No. 21610 of 2026
2
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…