Allahabad High Court
MOHIT KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the FIR discloses a prima facie offence and cannot be quashed.
Summary
Petitioner Mohit Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 07.07.2026 that alleged offences under sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) and 324(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and sections 3/4 of the D.P. Act. 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 discloses a prima facie case and therefore cannot be quashed. While refusing the petition, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioner must strictly follow the safeguards under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the B.N.S., and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and a prior Allahabad High Court order. The petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 07.07.2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the allegations in the FIR disclose a cognizable offence warranting investigation.
- What procedural safeguards must be observed if the petitioner is arrested under the impugned FIR.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita — s. 115(2), 324(2), 351(3), 352, 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7), 85
- Code of Criminal Procedure — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- FIR quash
- prima facie offence
- arrest safeguards
- Section 41 CrPC
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- criminal writ petition
- procedural compliance
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22961 of 2026
Mohit Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Manoj Kumar Singh, Swatantra Singh
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.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 07.07.2026, registered as Case Crime No. 250 of 2026,
under sections 85, 115 (2), 352, 351 (3) and 324 (2) of B.N.S. and section
3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station- Naubasta, District Kanpur Nagar.
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 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
CRLP No. 22961 of 2026
2
(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
Rama Kant
Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…