Allahabad High Court

JITENDER AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 5 May 2026
Bench: TARUN SAXENA MUNIR

Holding

The petition to quash the FIR is dismissed as the dispute defences must be investigated and cannot be decided in the present writ proceedings.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash an FIR registered under Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 131 and 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, alleging that the alleged assault on the informant's sons was not substantiated. The FIR described an incident on 1 March 2026 where the sons were attacked with sticks, sustaining multiple injuries, as corroborated by medical injury reports from the CHC, Baraut. The petitioners argued various defences, contending that the FIR was baseless. The Court held that the dispute defences require a full investigation and cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition under Article 226. Consequently, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition under Article 226 can be entertained to quash an FIR when the factual dispute requires investigation
Whether the injury reports sufficiently justify the registration of the FIR under the cited sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita

Legislation cited

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 115(2), 131, 191(2), 191(3), 351

Subjects

quash FIR
Article 226
writ petition
assault
injury report
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
criminal procedure

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9174 of 2026

Jitender And Another
                                                          .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

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

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                        :   Sachin Malik
Counsel for Respondent(s)                        :   G.A.

Court No. - 47
                     HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
                     HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.

1. Heard Mr. Sachin Malik, learned Counsel for the petitioners at great

length in support of the motion to admit this petition to hearing, Mr.

Akash Tyagi, learned Counsel, on behalf of respondent no. 4 and Mr.

Deepakh Kapoor, learned Additional Government Government, for the

State respondents.


2. The petitioners have come up with a prayer seeking to quash the

impugned FIR giving rise to Case Crime No. 0143 of 2026, under

Sections 191(2), 191(3), 115(2), 131, 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,

2023, Police Station - Baraut, District - Baghpat.


3. A perusal of the FIR shows that the first informant's sons Shubham

Tomar and Vishant Tomar, on the 1st of March, 2026 at about 10.30 a.m.,

had gone from Badauli to Badka Baghpat for the purpose of getting their

sugarcane produce weighed. As soon as Shubham reached the expeller,

Vikas, Harendra, Jitendra, Harsh and Akash, who are natives of their

village, arrived in a car and assaulted the informant's sons Shubham and

Vishant with sticks (lathi danda). Both of them received severe injuries.

The accused threatened Shubham and Vishant with death. It is on these
                                                          CRLP No. 9174 of 2026
                                2


allegations, that the first information was registered.


4. Learned AGA has produced before us copies of the injury reports

relating to Vishant and Shubham, both dated 01.03.2026, issued by the

CHC, Baraut, Baghpat.


5. A perusal of the injury report, relating to Vishant, shows that he has

sustained the following five injuries:

     "1. Traumatic injury size 10 cm x 8 cm on Rt. arm. 7 cm below
     top of Rt. shoulder joint. (KUO)


     2. A contusion 6 cm x 2 cm mid of upper spine (KUO).


     3. Traumatic swelling 10 cm x 7 cm on Lt. leg 8 cm below knee
     joint (KUO)


     4. A contusion 7 x 4 cm on Lt. knee joint (KUO)


     5. An abrasion 1 x 1 cm on Lt. Ankel joint. Complaint of pain
     on pelvic area."


6. Likewise, Shubham has sustained the following injuries:

     "1. Traumatic injury size 7 x 6 cm on Rt. forearm. on Rt.
     thumb (KUO)


     2. Traumatic injury size 8 x 4 cm on Lt. fore arm, 7 cm below
     Lt. elbow (KUO)


     3. A contusion 11 x 4 cm on Lt. thigh, 11cm above Lt. knee
     joint


     4. Contusion size 11 x 3 cm on Lt. knee.


     5. Contusion of size 10 x 2 cm on back of Rt. thigh."


7. Looking to the nature of the injuries sustained, where at least three, in

case of Vishant, and, two, in case of Shubham, have been advised to be

kept under observation, we decline to accept the disputed defences of the

petitioners advanced by Mr. Sachin Malik, learned Counsel, who has very
                                                                                             CRLP No. 9174 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    ably argued all possible points that could be canvassed, on behalf of the

                                    petitioners.


                                    8. The said dispute defences have to be thoroughly investigated and, if

                                    still the petitioners are charge-sheeted, thrashed at the trial. These cannot

                                    be gone into scrutiny in the present proceedings under Article 226 of the

                                    Constitution. This petition is dismissed.



                                                                            (Tarun Saxena,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Prashant D.




Digitally signed by :-
PRASHANT DWIVEDI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…