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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Relief confined to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: arrests, if any, to follow the Arnesh Kumar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) arrest-procedure guidelines; Police expected not to harass the petitioner till the conclusion of the investigation; petitioner to cooperate in the investigation.

Issue for consideration

Whether the First Information Report registered as Case Crime No. 353 of 2025 (Sections 304(2), 351(2), 352, 127(2), 78, 74 BNS, Police Station - Govind Nagar, Mathura) should be quashed. +1 more

Court's answer

The First Information Report prima facie discloses a cognizable offence; therefore the prayer made 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. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others.

Ratio / Principle

No interference is warranted; the quashing prayer is not entertained.

Key takeaways

Considering that all offences mentioned in the case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure that the procedure of arrest follows the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar.ratio¶12
The Police are expected not to harass the petitioner in any manner whatsoever till the conclusion of the investigation; in turn, the petitioner is expected to cooperate in the investigation.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (bench: Rajeev Misra and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.), Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25649 of 2025 filed by Amit Kumar against State of U.P. and 3 Others regarding FIR/Case Crime No. 353 of 2025 (Sections 304(2), 351(2), 352, 127(2), 78, 74 BNS), Police Station - Govind Nagar, District Mathura — disposed of on November 18, 2025. Prayer to quash the FIR not entertained: the FIR prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, relying on the law laid down in 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); court of the view that no interference is warranted. Relief confined by counsel to protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: since all offences are punishable with a term up to 7 years, authorities directed to ensure arrest per Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar ((2014) 8 SCC 273) Supreme Court guidelines; Police expected not to harass petitioner till conclusion of investigation; petitioner to cooperate.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25649 of 2025

Amit Kumar

.....Petitioner(s)

	Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others		...	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Abhishek Kumar Mishra	Kushwaha,	Nitin Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.
Court No.- 47

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

Heard Mr. Nitin Chandra Mishra, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. representing respondents 1 to 3.

2. Perused the record.

3.Although prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report registered on 19.09.2025 lodged as Case Crime No. 353 of 2025, under Sections 304(2), 351(2), 352, 127(2), 78, 74 BNS, Police Station - Govind Nagar, DistrictMathura 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.

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 .

5.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 petitioner till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioner shall cooperate in the investigation.

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

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

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