RANDHIR AND 2 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
CRLP/18856/2026 · 2026-09-15
Padam Narain Mishra, Salil Kumar Rai
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7857 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 7857 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18856 of 2026 Court No. - 45 HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the First Information Report dated 24.05.2026 registered as Case Crime No. 113 of 2026, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 333 of BNS, 2023, Police Station- Kotwali Kalpi, District- Jalaun.
3. We have perused the FIR, which prima facie discloses commission of offence and therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani reported in (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 315 and as such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.
4. However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned FIR, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned FIR, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 41(1)(b) and Section 41-A of CrPC/Section 35(3) to 35(7) of Bhartiya Nagrika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020 (Vimal Kumar and 3 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others) reported in 2021 (2) ACR 1147, be strictly complied with.
5. With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. September 16, 2026 Rama Kant Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Maneesh Kumar, Rajni Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Salil Kumar Rai,J.) Randhir And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- RAMA KANT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad