Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MAHENDRA AND 3 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court disposed of the petition, directing the police to follow the *Arnesh Kumar* arrest guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S., without granting a quash of the FIR or a blanket prohibition on arrest.

Summary

Mahendra and three others filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition challenging an FIR dated 18‑09‑2026 registered under sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S. and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. They sought a certiorari to quash the FIR and a mandamus directing the police not to arrest them, but later made an innocuous prayer that the police follow the Supreme Court’s guidelines in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*. The State opposed the merits of the petition but did not object to the innocuous prayer. The Court, noting the lack of objection, allowed the prayer and directed the police to adhere to the *Arnesh Kumar* guidelines and Section 35(3) of the B.N.S.S. The petition was disposed with this direction, without ordering the FIR to be quashed or prohibiting arrest outright.

Issues considered

  • Whether the FIR registered under the specified sections can be quashed.
  • Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to restrain the police from arresting the petitioners.
  • Whether the police must follow the arrest procedure laid down in *Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar*.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • criminal procedure
  • FIR
  • quash
  • mandamus
  • arrest
  • Arnesh Kumar guidelines
  • Dowry Prohibition Act
  • certiorari

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 24052 of 2026

Mahendra And 3 Others
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Krishna Gopal Singh, Sudhir Kumar
                                 Singh Parmar
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : G.A.

Court No. - 48
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
                 HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.

1. The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main
reliefs:-

"I. to Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash
the impugned First Information Report dated 18.09.2026 (Annexure No.1
writ petition) registered as Case Crime No.246 of 2026, under Sections
85, 115(2), 352, 351(3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act,
1961, Police Station Madanapur, District Shahjahanpur against the
petitioners.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature mandamus directing the
respondent authority not to arrest, in pursuance or impugned First
Information Report dated 18.09.2026, registered as Case Crime No.246
of 2026, under Sections 85, 115(2), 352, 351 (3) B.N.S. & Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, Police Station Madanapur, District
Shahjahanpur."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners after some length of
arguments on merits made an innocuous prayer that before arresting the
petitioners 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 the State
                                                                                         CRLP No. 24052 of 2026
                                                                  2


                                    vehemently opposed the petition on merits but he has no objection to the
                                    innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

                                    4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. S.N.
                                    Tiwari, 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 petitioners and no objection by learned A.G.A. on
                                    innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, we are
                                    inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the
                                    petitioners.

                                    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.



                                                               (Abdul Shahid,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
                                    October 1, 2026
                                    Atul




Digitally signed by :-
ATUL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
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.