Allahabad High Court
CRLP/21551/2026 of HARILAL Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS on 8 September 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21551 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-respondents. 2. Although, the prayer made in this writ petition is to
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 21551 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-respondents.
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.0262 of 2026, under Sections 2, 3 and 5 Prevention of Damages of Public Property Act, 1984, Police Station - Phoolpur, District - Azamgarh, 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 Bharatiya Nagarik 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, the authorities are directed to ensure the procedure of arrest as per the guidelines of the Supreme Court enshrined in the case of Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
6. 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 co-operate in the investigation.
7. The writ petition, accordingly, is disposed of. September 9, 2026 vijay krishna Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ram Janam Shahi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. (Jai Krishna Upadhyay,J.) (Siddhartha Varma,J.) Harilal .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Digitally signed by :- VIJAY KRISHNA JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad