Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

ROBIN KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 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 09-11-2025 registered under Sections 319(2) and 318(4) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act. The High Court examined the FIR and held that it disclosed a prima facie commission of offence, citing Supreme Court precedents (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra). Consequently, the court refused 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 under Sections 41(1)(b) and 41-A of the Cr.P.C., Sections 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 dated 09-11-2025 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie case
  • Whether the FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence under the B.N.S. and IT Act
  • Whether the investigating authorities must comply with statutory arrest safeguards in the present case

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • FIR quash
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Arrest safeguards
  • Cyber crime
  • Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
  • Information Technology Act
  • Section 66D
  • Section 41 CrPC
  • Supreme Court precedent

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 22996 of 2026

Robin Kumar
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                        :    Rajiv Sisodia
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
respondents

2. No notice is issued to respondent No.3 in view of the order proposed
to be passed.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 09.11.2025 registered as Case Crime No.236 of 2025, under
Sections 319(2), 318(4) of the B.N.S. and Section 66D of the I.T. Act,
Police Station Cyber Crime Thana Ghaziabad, District Ghaziabad.

4. 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.

5. 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
                                                                                      CRLP No. 22996 of 2026
                                                                2


                                    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
                                    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.

                                    6. 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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.