Allahabad High Court
LAVKUSHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence and cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quash of an FIR dated 22.08.2026, registered under Section 74 of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita (B.N.S.) and Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, rendering the prayer to quash untenable in view of Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere with the FIR. However, noting that the alleged offences carry a maximum imprisonment of seven years, 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 Cr.P.C., Section 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 writ petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR under Section 74 B.N.S. and Sections 7/8 POCSO can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case.
- Whether the arrest of the petitioner must comply with the procedural safeguards of Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A Cr.P.C., Section 35 provisions of B.N.S., and the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.
Legislation cited
- Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita — s. 35(3), 35(4), 35(5), 35(6), 35(7), 74
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 41(1)(b), 41-A
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act — s. 7, 8
Subjects
- FIR quash
- Section 74 B.N.S.
- POCSO Act
- Arrest procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 35 B.N.S.
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22994 of 2026
Lavkush
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anuj Datta, Shive Datta Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anurag Shrivastava, G.A., Shiv
Bhushan Singh
Court No. - 45
HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, the A.G.A. for the State
respondents and Sri Shiv Bhushan Singh, counsel for respondent No.4.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 22.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No.131 of 2026, under
Section 74 of the B.N.S. and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, Police
Station Nidholi Kalan, District Etah.
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 Cr.P.C./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 reported in (2014) 8
SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated
CRLP No. 22994 of 2026
2
28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
17732 of 2020 (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
Rakesh
Digitally signed by :-
RAKESH MEHTA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…