Allahabad High Court
AYUB KHAN AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The FIR discloses a prima facie commission of offence and therefore cannot be quashed.
Summary
The petitioners, Ayub Khan and four others, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the FIR dated 19‑08‑2026 (Case Crime No.176 of 2026) registered under sections 191(2), 78(2), 131 and 351(3) 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 the FIR untenable, in line with the Supreme Court precedents of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. While refusing to interfere with 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 Cr.P.C., Sections 35(3)‑35(7) of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, and the guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and the Court’s own earlier order in Vimal Kumar et al. v. State of U.P. The writ petition was consequently disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR dated 19‑08‑2026 can be quashed on the ground of lack of prima facie evidence of offence.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the registration of the FIR under the cited provisions of the Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita.
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
Subjects
- quash of FIR
- prima facie offence
- arrest procedure
- Section 41 CrPC
- Section 35 Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita
- Arnesh Kumar guidelines
- criminal writ petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23007 of 2026
Ayub Khan And 4 Others
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Javed Khan
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 19.08.2026 registered as Case Crime No.176 of 2026, under
Sections 191(2), 78(2), 131 and 351(3) of the B.N.S., Police Station
Dildarnagar, District Ghazipur.
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
Section 41-A of Cr.P.C./Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika
CRLP No. 23007 of 2026
2
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
Checking your session…