Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DEEPAK KUMAR AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court held that the FIR cannot be quashed as it discloses a prima facie commission of offence.

Summary

Petitioners Deepak Kumar and two others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 01.08.2026 registered under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The High Court examined the FIR, found a prima facie case of offence and therefore refused to quash the FIR, relying on Supreme Court precedents such as State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. While rejecting the petition, the Court directed that any arrest of the petitioners must strictly comply with the safeguards under Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41‑A of the Cr.P.C., Sections 35(3)‑(7) of the B.N.S., and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and its own earlier order in Vimal Kumar et al. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.

Issues considered

  • Whether the FIR dated 01.08.2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence.
  • Whether the High Court may interfere with the registration of the FIR under the B.N.S. and Dowry Prohibition Act.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • FIR quash
  • Criminal procedure
  • Arrest safeguards
  • B.N.S.
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • Writ petition
  • Prima facie case
  • Section 41 CrPC
  • Section 41-A CrPC

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23006 of 2026

Deepak Kumar And 2 Others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                          :    Bharat Garg
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
respondents.

2. No notice is issued to respondent No.4 in view of the order proposed
to be passed.

3. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information
Report dated 01.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0060 of 2026,
under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S. and Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station Mahila Thana, District
Bareilly.

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 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
                                                                                      CRLP No. 23006 of 2026
                                                                 2


                                    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
                                    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.