Allahabad High Court
SUDHIR KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses the commission of an offence.
Summary
Sudhir Kumar filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 14‑08‑2026 that alleged offences under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The Allahabad High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, therefore the prayer to quash the FIR could not be entertained, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). The Court, however, directed that any arrest of the petitioner must strictly comply with 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 its own earlier order. The writ petition was consequently disposed of without granting relief to the petitioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under sections 115(2), 352 and 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to protection from arrest in view of the provisions of the CrPC and the B.N.S.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita — s. 115(2), 351(3), 352, 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Arrest guidelines
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Section 41 CrPC
- High Court writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22967 of 2026
Sudhir Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Dubey
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 14.08.2026, registered at Case Crime No. 0280 of 2026,
under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S., at Police Station- Khutar,
District- Shahjahanpur;
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. 22967 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…