Allahabad High Court
SHIVAM PRAJAPATIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence and therefore no interference is warranted.
Summary
The petition filed by Shivam Prajapati sought quashing of an FIR dated 02‑09‑2026 registered under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer for quash untenable. Relying on Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, noting that the alleged offences carry a maximum imprisonment of seven years, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly observe the safeguards under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the Cr.P.C., Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the B.N.S., and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case
- Whether the investigating authorities must comply with procedural safeguards before arrest
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 106(1), 281, 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 procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Supreme Court precedent
- criminal procedure
- writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22941 of 2026
Shivam Prajapati
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avanish Pandey, Surya Prakash
Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the A.G.A. for the State
respondents.
2. No notice is issued to respondent No.3 in view of the order proposed
to be passed.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 02.09.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0811 of 2026,
under Sections 281 and 106(1) of the B.N.S., Police Station Khalilabad,
District Sant Kabir Nagar.
4. 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.
5. 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
CRLP No. 22941 of 2026
2
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./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 reported in (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 complied with.
6. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.)
September 30, 2026
Rakesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…