Allahabad High Court
AKRAM AND 5 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, Akram and five others, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 02‑09‑2026 registered under sections 191(2), 115(2), 352 and 351(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it discloses a prima facie commission of offence, therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained, relying on the Supreme Court decisions in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. While refusing to set aside the FIR, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly follow 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 the Court’s own earlier order in Vimal Kumar et al. v. State of U.P. The writ petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 02‑09‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the High Court should interfere with the FIR in view of the Supreme Court precedents.
- What procedural safeguards must be observed if the petitioners are arrested under the impugned FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita — s. 115(2), 191(2), 351(2), 352, 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
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22953 of 2026
Akram And 5 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shams Zaki Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Mukesh Joshi
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners, the A.G.A. for the State
respondents and Sri Mukesh Joshi, counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 02.09.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0268 of 2026,
under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) of the B.N.S., Police Station
Mundha Pandey, District Moradabad.
3. 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.
4. 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 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
CRLP No. 22953 of 2026
2
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.
5. 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…