Allahabad High Court
VISHAL AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR cannot be quashed as it prima facie discloses the commission of offences.
Summary
The petitioners challenged the registration of an FIR dated 02‑08‑2026 under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 109 of the B.N.S. and Sections 3 & 4 of the D.P. Act, seeking its quash. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it prima facie disclosed the commission of offences, rendering the prayer to quash untenable, in line with the Supreme Court rulings in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, noting that the alleged offences carry a maximum punishment of seven years, the Court directed the investigating authorities to strictly follow the arrest safeguards prescribed in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the CrPC, Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020. The petition was therefore disposed of without granting any relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered under the specified provisions can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
- Whether the High Court should intervene in the FIR when it discloses a prima facie case of offence.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7)
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
- D.P. Act — s. 3, 4
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Arrest safeguards
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Supreme Court precedent
- Criminal miscellaneous writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22969 of 2026
Vishal And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mamta Singh, Nitin Singh, Shubham
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Kapil Tyagi
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 02.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0373 of 2026,
Under Sections 85, 115 (2), 352, 109 B.N.S. and Section 3 & 4 of D.P.
Act, Police Station- Dadri, District Gautam Buddh 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 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
CRLP No. 22969 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…