Allahabad High Court

RAMKESH SETHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 22 September 2026
Bench: TARUN SAXENA MAYUR JAIN JT REGISTRAR LISTING

Holding

The Court directed the police to adhere to the arrest guidelines of Arnesh Kumar and Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, disposing the petition without granting the reliefs of quashing the FIR or mandamus.

Summary

Ramkesh Seth filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging the registration of an FIR dated 09.09.2026 under several provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The petitioner sought quashing of the FIR and a mandamus directing the police not to take coercive action, but later made an innocuous prayer that the arrest, if any, be carried out in accordance with the Supreme Court’s guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar. The State opposed the substantive reliefs but did not object to the procedural prayer. The Court, noting the lack of objection to the innocuous prayer, allowed it and directed the authorities to follow the arrest procedure laid down in Arnesh Kumar and Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed with directions on arrest procedure, without granting the primary reliefs of quashing the FIR or mandamus.

Issues considered

Whether the FIR registered under Sections 316(2), 74, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(d), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act can be quashed.
Whether a mandamus can be issued directing the police not to take coercive action against the petitioner.
Whether the police must follow the arrest guidelines laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Section 35(3) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 115(2), 316(2), 351(3), 352, 35(3), 74
Scheduled Castes/Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015) — s. 3(1)(d), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va)

Subjects

FIR quash
mandamus
Arrest procedure
Arnesh Kumar guidelines
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Criminal writ petition
High Court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23046 of 2026

Ramkesh Seth
                                                             .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Mritunjay     Kumar     Singh,    Sadashiv
                                  Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : G.A.

Court No. - 48
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
                 HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main
reliefs:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned First Information Report dated 09.09.2026 registered as Case
Crime No. 0255/2026, Under Section 316(2), 74, 115(2), 352 & 351(3)
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(d) & 3(2)(va) Scheduled
Cast/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Arocities) Act, 1989 (Amendment 2015),
Police Station- Vindhyachal, District-Mirzapur. (Annexure No. 1 to this writ
petition).


(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondent No. 2 & 3 not to take any coercive action against the petitioner in
pursuance of the impugned First Information Report dated 09.09.2026
registered as Case Crime No. 0255/2026, Under Section- 316(2), 74,
115(2), 352 & 351(3) Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and 3(1)(r), 3(1)(d) & 3(2)(va)
Scheduled Cast/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Arocities) Act, 1989
(Amendment 2015). Police Station- Vindhyachal, District-Mirzapur."


2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner after some
length of arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that
before arresting the petitioner police may be directed to follow the
principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh
Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

3. Per contra, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of State
vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection
to the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
                                                                                       CRLP No. 23046 of 2026
                                                                 2

                                    4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.
                                    R.K. Gupta, learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State and
                                    perused the record.

                                    5. Taking into consideration the submissions and prayer made by
                                    learned counsel for the petitioner and no objection by learned
                                    A.G.A. on innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the
                                    petitioner, we are inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by
                                    learned counsel for the petitioner.

                                    6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the authorities
                                    concerned to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines
                                    of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs.
                                    State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 and provision of
                                    Section 35(3) of B.N.S.S.



                                                              (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
                                    September 23, 2026
                                    Saurabh




Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…