Allahabad High Court
SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR is not liable to be quashed as it discloses a prima facie case; no interference is warranted.
Summary
Petitioners Sanjeev Kumar Gupta and another filed a writ petition challenging the FIR dated 12‑09‑2026 lodged in Crime No. 0610 of 2026, which alleged offences under Sections 506 and 387 IPC (criminal intimidation and attempt to murder). The Court examined the FIR and held that it discloses a prima facie case, therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained, relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). While refusing to quash the FIR, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly comply with 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 a prior Allahabad High Court order. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 506 and 387 IPC can be quashed on the grounds raised by the petitioners.
- Whether the authorities must observe the procedural safeguards under CrPC and the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita while effecting an arrest in respect of the FIR.
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
- Indian Penal Code — s. 387, 506
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Criminal intimidation
- Attempt to murder
- Procedural safeguards
- Arrest guidelines
- Section 41 CrPC
- Bharatiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22980 of 2026
Sanjeev Kumar Gupta And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Harish Kumar Yadav, Krishna Gopal
Yadav
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 petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 12.09.2026 lodged in Case Crime No.0610 of 2026, under
Sections 351(3) and 308(4) BNS 2023, which are Sections 506 and 387
IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, 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 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. 22980 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…