Ranjeet Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Ranjeet Kumar and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of without quashing the FIR; arrest of petitioners to follow the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar; police expected not to harass the petitioners till conclusion of investigation; petitioners to cooperate with the investigation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition praying for quashing of the FIR dated 15.10.2025 (Case Crime No. 578 of 2025, Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Handia, Prayagraj) could be entertained. +1 more

Court's answer

The First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence; consequently, the prayer to quash the F.I.R. cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

Ratio / Principle

No interference with the FIR is warranted.

Key takeaways

Since all offences mentioned in the case are punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.ratio¶13
It is expected of the Police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation.ratio¶14
The petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Court No. 47; Rajeev Misra and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.) disposed of a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition (No. 25636 of 2025) seeking quashing of the FIR dated 15.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 578 of 2025 under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S. Handia, Ganganagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), District Prayagraj. Perusing the FIR, the Court found it prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence and held the prayer to quash could not be entertained, relying on State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 315; no interference was warranted. Since all offences mentioned were punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years, the authorities were directed to ensure the arrest procedure per the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; the police were expected not to harass the petitioners till conclusion of investigation, while the petitioners were to cooperate. Decided November 18, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25636 of 2025

Ranjeet Kumar And 4 Others

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 4 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: R.B.Pal, Umesh Kumar Pal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 47

HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

Heard Mr. Umesh Kumar Pal, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned AGA for the State.

Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 15.10.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 578 of 2025, under Sections 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(2) B.N.S., P.S.- Handia, Ganganagar (Commissionerate Prayagraj), District- Prayagraj.

3.We have perused the the First Information Report which prima facie discloses cognizable offence and, therefore, the prayer made to quash F.I.R. otherwise cannot be entertained in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2021) SCC Online SC 315.

4.We are of the view that no interference is warranted.

However, considering the fact that all offences, mentioned in the present case, are punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

It is expected of the Police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion

CRLP No. 25636 of 2025

2

of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)

November 18, 2025

Sharad/-

Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad