Allahabad High Court
DADHIBAL MALLversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence and therefore cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking to quash an FIR dated 09.07.2026 under Sections 351(3) and 316(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash untenable. Relying on Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani; Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra) the Court affirmed that no interference was warranted. However, the Court 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.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Sections 351(3) and 316(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case.
- 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 — s. 316(2), 351(3), 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 procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 35 B.N.S.
- procedural safeguards
- criminal procedure
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22984 of 2026
Dadhibal Mall
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Km. Khushi
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 09.07.2026 registered as Case Crime No.237 of 2026, under
Sections 351(3), 316(2) B.N.S., Police Station- Kaptanganj, District-
Kushinagar.
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. 22984 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…