Allahabad High Court
DHARMPAL AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence and cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 12‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 333, 76 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie case of commission of offence, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). Consequently, the court refused to interfere with the FIR. However, noting that the offences carry a maximum imprisonment of seven years, the court directed the investigating authorities to strictly observe the arrest safeguards under 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 its own earlier order. The writ petition was therefore disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence of offence
- Whether the investigating authorities must comply with arrest safeguards under CrPC and B.N.S. while acting on the FIR
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 333, 351(3), 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7), 76
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Arrest safeguards
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- POCSO Act
- Supreme Court precedent
- Writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21657 of 2026
Dharmpal And 2 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rohit Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Prayogendra Pal Singh
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 12.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No.432 of 2026, under
Sections 333, 76, 351 (3) of B.N.S., & Section 7/8 POCSO Act, Police
Station Jahangirabad, District Bulandshahar.
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. 21657 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
Satyam
Digitally signed by :-
SATYAM AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…