Allahabad High Court
VIKRANT THAKURversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition seeking quashing of the FIR is dismissed as the court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with a valid FIR disclosing a cognizable offence.
Summary
The petitioner, Vikrant Thakur, filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR dated 08‑02‑2026 that alleged offences under Sections 103(1), 333, 109(1) and 3(5) of the Indian Penal Code, including a charge of murder under Section 302. The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, opposed the petition, arguing that the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence and that the petitioner’s innocence could not be inferred from the pleadings. The State also relied on a prior Division Bench decision (Prateek Garg v. State of U.P.) and the Supreme Court’s guidelines in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani for refusing to interfere with an FIR. The petitioner’s counsel was unable to rebut these submissions. The Court held that the objections raised were substantiated by the record and that the writ court has no jurisdiction to quash a valid FIR, consequently dismissing the petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can quash an FIR that discloses a cognizable offence under Section 302 IPC.
- Whether the petitioner’s claim of innocence can be inferred from the writ petition pleadings.
- Whether the precedents cited by the State bar the writ court from interfering with the FIR.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 103(1), 109(1), 302, 333, 3(5)
Subjects
- quashing of FIR
- cognizable offence
- criminal writ petition
- jurisdiction of High Court
- Section 302 IPC
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5120 of 2026
Vikrant Thakur
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajeet Kumar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Veerendra Singh
Court No. - 47
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE LAKSHMI KANT SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar Mishra, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ajit
Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
representing State respondents 1,2,3 and Mr. Prarabha Jain, Advocate
holding brief of Mr. Veerendra Singh, the learned counsel representing first
informant respondent 4.
2. Perused the record.
3. Petitioner Vikrant Thakur has approached this court by means of present
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition challenging the FIR dated 08.02.2026 lodged by
first informant respondent 4 Pradeep Rana and registered as Case Crime No.
0026 of 2026, under Sections 103(1), 333, 109(1), 3(5) BNS, Police Station
Biharigarh, District Saharanpur.
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. representing State respondents 1,2
and 3 raised an objection by contending therein that the impugned FIR has
also been lodged under Section 103(1) BNS i.e. 302 IPC. It is then
contended by the learned A.G.A. that the innocence of the petitioner can not
be inferred by this court as per the pleadings raised in the present writ
petition. The FIR impugned in present writ petition discloses the
commission of a cognizable offence, therefore no interference is warranted
by this court in present writ petition. To buttress his submission the learned
A.G.A. has invited the attention of Court to the order dated 19.02.2018
passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No. 26757 of 2017, Prateek Garg v. State of U.P. and 2 others, wherein
the Division Bench after taking into consideration the judgement passed by
CRLP No. 5120 of 2026
2
the Apex Court in the case of State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah
Jeelani and others, 2017 Law Suit (SC)23. It is urged by the learned
A.G.A. that when the FIR impugned in present writ petition is examined in
the light of parameters laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned
judgement, no case for quashing of FIR is made out. As such present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed
5. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for petitioner could not
over come the same.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A.
representing State respondents 1,2,3, the learned counsel representing first
informant respondent 4 and considering the objections raised by the learned
A.G.A. in opposition to the present writ petition as noted herein above we
find that is same are clearly borne out from the record. In view of above, we
decline to entertain the present writ petition.
7. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.
8. It is accordingly dismissed.
March 18, 2026
RPD
(Lakshmi Kant Shukla,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
RATAN PRAKASH DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…