Allahabad High Court
SANJAY GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses the commission of offence, and no interference is warranted.
Summary
The petitioner Sanjay Gupta filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 3 April 2025 that alleged offences under several IPC sections and the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the petition for quashment 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 observe the arrest safeguards prescribed under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the BNS 2023, and the guidelines from Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order. The petition was therefore disposed without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground that it does not disclose a prima facie offence.
- Whether the authorities must comply with the procedural safeguards for arrest under CrPC and the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
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 Section 41
- Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21648 of 2026
Sanjay Gupta
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pawan Kumar, Sanju Yadav
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 petitioner and the A.G.A. for the State.
The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report
dated 3.4.2025 registered as Case Crime No.56 of 2025, under
Sections 61(2),316(2),76,333,352,351(2) BNS 2023 (120B, 406, 34B, 452,
504, 506 IPC) Police Station Cantt, 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 petitioner 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. 21648 of 2026
2
complied with.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
September 23, 2026
Satyam
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SATYAM AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…