Disposed

Smt. Krishna Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2025CRLP/11132/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition sought quashing of an FIR under BNS provisions punishable up to seven years. The court declined to quash, holding the FIR disclosed a cognizable offence, but directed strict compliance with Section 35 BNSS, Arnesh Kumar guidelines and related directives before any arrest.

What did the court decide?

No quashing; direction to comply with Section 35 BNSS, Arnesh Kumar guidelines and related arrest safeguards before arresting petitioners.

Smt. Krishna Devi and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 11132 of 2025

¶3

Smt. Krishna Devi And Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Dhananjai Kumar	Tripathi, Tanupriya, Vivek
	Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 30

¶10

HON'BLE RAJIV GUPTA, J. HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶12

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the FIR dated 04.10.2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 441 of 2025, under Sections- 115(2) 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station- Lalgan, District- Raibareli, but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that all the offences, complained of, are punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioner, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. (Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

¶13

We have perused the first information report, which prima facie discloses the cognizable offence against the petitioner and therefore, the prayer made to quash the first information report 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.

¶14

However, considering the fact that all the offences, complained of in the impugned first information report, are punishable with a term up to seven years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner in pursuance of the impugned first information report, it is directed that the respondents/ authorities shall ensure that the specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. and the guidelines issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273 as well as the directions issued in judgment and order dated

¶15

CRLP No. 11132 of 2025

¶16

¶17

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, and further directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Another vide order dated 21.01.2025 be strictly complied with.

¶18

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.

¶19

November 27, 2025 Haseen U.

¶20

(Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J.) (Rajiv Gupta,J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- HASEENUDDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Krishna Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Krishna Devi and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Satyam Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Swapnil Soni Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 7 Others

Pratiksha Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Raju and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Others

Avinash Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. (Home Deptt.) Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Others

Ram Chandra Singh and Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. U.P. and Others