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

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
      CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5907 of 2026



Seeta And 2 Others
                                                    .....Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Anoop    Kumar,            Rajesh
                                   Kumar Patel
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : G.A.

Court No. - 49


                 HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
                 HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

The petitioners have sought for the following reliefs:
“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned F.I.R. dated 08.02.2026 registered as Case
Crime No.0053 of 2026 under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109,
115(2), 352, 351(3) of the B.N.S., Police Station -Line Bazar,
District-Jaunpur.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the police authorities not to arrest the petitioners in the
F.I.R. dated 08.02.2026 registered as Case Crime No.0053 of 2026
under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 190, 109, 115(2), 352, 351(3) of the
B.N.S., Police Station -Line Bazar, District-Jaunpur."

Briefly put the prosecution case set out in the F.I.R is
that the accused persons brutally assaulted the victims
with intent to kill. The victims have sustained grievous
injuries.

Shri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the F.I.R. arises out of a violent brawl
between the parties, and both parties have suffered
injuries.
                                                     CRLP No. 5907 of 2026
                           2


Learned AGA for the State on the basis of instructions
submits that the fact of the incident has been admitted
and it only affirms the needs for further investigation to
determine culpability. Learned A.G.A. further submits
that the F.I.R. as well as the materials in the record
establish prima facie commission of the offence. The
investigation is on foot. Staying the arrest of the
petitioners at this stage would impede the
investigations. Challenge to an F.I.R. and grant of
interim protection has to be examined in light of law
laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana
v. Bhajan Lal reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 and
Neeharika Infrastructure Private Limited Vs. State
of Maharashtra and others reported at (2021) 19
SCC 401.

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record. The F.I.R. prima facie discloses commission of
cognizable offences and warrants an investigation into
the same. Grant of interim protection at this stage will
not only compromise the investigation but may also
cause the loss or disappearance of evidence. Moreover,
in the facts of this case such a course of action will be
in the teeth of law laid down in Bhajan Lal (Supra)
and Neeharika (supra).

While stating the grounds on which the FIR can be
quashed by the Court in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme
Court in Bhajan Lal (Supra) held as under:
"102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant
provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the
exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the
inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have
extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following
                                                     CRLP No. 5907 of 2026
                              3


categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could
be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or
otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently
channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give
an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power
should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in
their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a
cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers
under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a
Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not
disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against
the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable
offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no
investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so
absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent
person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the
provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance
of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the
Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the
                                                            CRLP No. 5907 of 2026
                              4


grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a
view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of
quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly
and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that
the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to
the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in
the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent
powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act
according to its whim or caprice."

The Supreme Court in Neeharika (supra) expounded
the law as under:
"33.16. The aforesaid parameters would be applicable and/or the
aforesaid aspects are required to be considered by the High Court while
passing an interim order in a quashing petition in exercise of powers
under Section 482CrPC and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. However, an interim order of stay of investigation during the
pendency of the quashing petition can be passed with circumspection.
Such an interim order should not require to be passed routinely, casually
and/or mechanically. Normally, when the investigation is in progress and
the facts are hazy and the entire evidence/material is not before the High
Court, the High Court should restrain itself from passing the interim order
of not to arrest or “no coercive steps to be adopted” and the accused
should be relegated to apply for anticipatory bail under Section 438CrPC
before the competent court. The High Court shall not and as such is not
justified in passing the order of not to arrest and/or “no coercive steps”
either during the investigation or till the investigation is completed and/or
till the final report/charge-sheet is filed under Section 173CrPC, while
dismissing/disposing of the quashing petition under Section 482CrPC
and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."
                                                                                     CRLP No. 5907 of 2026
                                                               5


                                        The judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in
                                        Bhajan Lal (supra) and Neeharika Infrastructure
                                        (supra) are squarely applicable to the facts of this case
                                        and dissuade us from granting any interim protection to
                                        the petitioners.

                                        Faced with this, Shri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel
                                        for the petitioners submits that the petitioners do not
                                        wish to press the relief for quashing of the F.I.R. in the
                                        writ petition. The relief sought for quashing of the
                                        F.I.R. is accordingly declined.
                                        Shri Anoop Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners
                                        recasts his relief and submits that the petitioners may
                                        be granted liberty to approach the competent court for
                                        anticipatory bail and for seeking appropriate remedies
                                        available with them under the law.
                                        It is always open to the petitioners to avail other legal
                                        remedies as may be advised.
                                        The writ petition is disposed of.

                                        March 19, 2026
                                        Ashish Tripathi

                                                               (Tarun Saxena,J.) (Ajay Bhanot,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad