Disposed¶14

Tasleem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Nov 2025CRLP/25646/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused where FIR prima facie discloses cognizable offence (State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jellani; Neeharika Infrastructure); relief confined to protection under Section 35 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; directions to follow Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar arrest procedure for offences punishable up to 7 years; police not to harass petitioners during investigation; offences under Ss. 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Shahi, Bareilly; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer to quash the F.I.R. declined; protection directions issued instead: authorities to ensure arrest procedure per Arnesh Kumar guidelines, police not to harass petitioners till conclusion of investigation, and petitioners to cooperate in the investigation. ¶14

Tasleem and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report registered on 11.06.2025 as Case Crime No. 0259 of 2025 should be quashed. +1 more

¶9

Court's answer

The First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, and therefore 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 Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

No interference with the F.I.R. is warranted by this Court.

¶11

Key takeaways

Since all offences mentioned in the present case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the Supreme Court guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.ratio¶12
The Police are expected not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever, and the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition (Allahabad High Court, Rajeev Misra, J. and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, J., decided November 18, 2025): Petitioners sought quashing of F.I.R. being Case Crime No. 0259 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Shahi, District Bareilly, but confined relief to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Held: the F.I.R. prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, so the quashing prayer could not be entertained in view of State of Telangana Vs. Habib Abdullah Jellani, (2017) 2 SCC 779 and Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021) SCC Online SC 315; no interference warranted. As all offences are punishable up to 7 years, authorities were directed to ensure the arrest procedure per Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273; police expected not to harass petitioners till conclusion of investigation, subject to their cooperation. Writ petition disposed of.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25646 of 2025

¶3

Tasleem And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others			.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Kumar Kumar	Saroj,	Raj Ashwani, Sunil
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 47

¶6

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

¶7

Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1, 2 & 3.

¶8

2. Perused the record.

¶9

3.Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 11.06.2025 lodged as Case Crime No. 0259 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station - Shahi, District- Bareilly but at the time when the matter is taken up the learned counsel for petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶10

4.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 .

¶11

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

¶12

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 .

¶13

It is expected of the Police not to harass the petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners shall cooperate in the investigation.

¶14

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. November 18, 2025 Dhirendra/

¶15

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

¶16

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

Tasleem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tasleem and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satyapal vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kumarpal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sanjay Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anil Kumar Yadav @ Anil and 2 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Ravindra Yadav and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shyamlal Maurya and 4 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others