Allahabad High Court
CRLP/21534/2026 of SANDEEP SONI @ SANDEEP SETH @ GOLI SETH Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 8 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21534 of 2026 Court No. - 44 HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21534 of 2026
Court No. - 44
HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.
HON'BLE JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
2
Decisions referred to
In this index
2
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State.
2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to quash the First Information Report dated 22.08.2026 giving rise to Case Crime No.269 of 2026, under Sections 318(4), 352, 351(3) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Khuthan, District
- Jaunpur, but at the time when the matter is taken up learned counsel for the petitioner confines his relief to grant of protection under section 35 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
3. We have perused the the First Information Report, which prima facie discloses commissioning of 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.
5. 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 as well as the directions issued in judgement and order dated 28.1.2021 of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 17732 of 2020.
6. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. September 9, 2026 vijay krishna Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Babu Lal Ram, Gyanendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Sandeep Soni @ Sandeep Seth @ Goli Seth .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad