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

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with directions: authorities to ensure arrest procedure per Arnesh Kumar guidelines (offences punishable up to 7 years); police not to harass petitioners till conclusion of investigation; petitioners to cooperate in investigation. Prayer to quash FIR declined.

Issue for consideration

Whether the prayer to quash the First Information Report registered on 10.09.2025 (Case Crime No. 404 of 2025) can be entertained. +1 more

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. vs. State of Maharashtra.

Ratio / Principle

No interference with the F.I.R. is warranted.

Key takeaways

Since all offences mentioned in the case are punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.ratio¶16
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¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.) disposed of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25670 of 2025 filed by Shaukat Ali against State of U.P. and 3 others, which sought quashing of the FIR dated 10.09.2025 (Case Crime No. 404 of 2025, Sections 329(3), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, P.S. Phoolpur, District Prayagraj). At the hearing, counsel confined relief to grant of protection under Section 35 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Holding that the FIR prima facie disclosed a cognizable offence, the Court declined to entertain the quashing prayer, relying on 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, and observed that no interference was warranted. Since all offences were punishable with a term up to 7 years, the authorities were directed to ensure the arrest procedure per the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar vs. 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. Writ petition disposed of on November 18, 2025.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25670 of 2025

Shaukat Ali

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Rahul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: G.A.

Court No. - 47

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

Heard Mr. Rahul Kumar, 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 10.09.2025 lodged as Case Crime No. 404 of 2025, under Sections 329(3), 191(2), 115(2), 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station - Phoolpur, DistrictPrayagraj 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 petitioners till the conclusion of the investigation in any manner whatsoever. However, the petitioners 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