Randheer Singh @ Chhote vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Randheer Singh @ Chhote vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer to quash the FIR declined; writ petition finally disposed of with directions that any arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR must be preceded by strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the Arnesh Kumar guidelines, and the Vimal Kumar directions.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition praying for quashing of the F.I.R. dated 16.09.2025 (Case Crime No. 0392 of 2025) should be entertained. +1 more

Court's answer

The FIR prima facie discloses commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner; therefore the prayer to quash the FIR cannot be entertained and no interference is warranted.

Ratio / Principle

In case the petitioner is arrested pursuant to the impugned FIR, the respondents/authorities shall ensure strict compliance with Section 35 of B.N.S.S., the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, and the directions dated 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar v. State of U.P.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rajeev Misra and Dr. Ajay Kumar-II, JJ.) finally disposed of Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 25676 of 2025 filed by Randheer Singh @ Chhote seeking quashing of the FIR dated 16.09.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0392 of 2025 under Sections 115(2), 74, 78 of the B.N.S. Act at Police Station Civil Lines, District City Commissionerate Prayagraj. Holding that the FIR prima facie disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the Court declined to interfere, 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. Since the offence complained of is punishable with a term up to seven years, the Court directed that if the petitioner is arrested pursuant to the impugned FIR, the respondents/authorities shall strictly comply with Section 35 of the B.N.S.S., the guidelines in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273, and the directions issued on 28.01.2021 in Vimal Kumar and 3 Others v. State of U.P., 2021 (2) ACR 1147.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25676 of 2025

Randheer Singh @ Chhote

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

.....Respondent(s)

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

Court No. - 47

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

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for Staterespondents 1 and 2.

Perused the record.

Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the F.I.R. dated 16.09.2025 registered as Case Crime No. 0392 of 2025, under Sections 115(2), 74, 78 of B.N.S. Act at Police Station Civil Lines, District City Commissionerate Prayagraj), but when the matter has been taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the offence, complained of, is punishable up to seven years and therefore, before effecting the arrest of the petitioners, specific provisions contained in Section 35 of B.N.S.S. be strictly complied with in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments.

We have perused the F.I.R., which prima facie discloses the commission of a cognizable offence against the petitioner. Therefore, the prayer made to quash the FIR cannot be entertained in view of law laid down by Apex Court in 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 . As such, we are of the view that no interference is warranted.

However, considering the fact that the offence complained of in the impugned FIR, is punishable with a term up to 7 years, therefore, in case of effecting the arrest of the petitioner pursuant to the impugned FIR, 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

CRLP No. 25676 of 2025

2

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 judgement and order dated 28.01.2021 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 , be strictly complied with.

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

November 18, 2025 Monika

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

Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad